f     IIOI'  *' "  - 


5:^  5:i  5:^3 1^  .j^  i:^.  "^:2r 

OF   THK 
AT 

PRINCETON,   N.  J. 


SAMUEL    AQNE^V, 

OF     PHILADELPHIA,     PA. 


^^^(l//  ^d^/£^  /c^^/: 


fj  Cane, 

I  Sh(Tf\ 

D  Book, 

© 


>3  S'^^5>3s^^^e  cr<^^3  ♦•1 
Division 


^ectien ® 

._No, 


p' 


TREATISE 


EXHIBITING  THE  DISTINCTION 


THE    FATHER,    SON,    AND    HOLY    SPZHZT. 


BY   HUMPHREY    MOORE, 

Pastor  of  the  Church  in  Milford,  N.  H. 


BOSTON: 

PUBLISHED    BY   SAMUEL    T.    ARMSTRONG, 

For  the  Author. 

Crocker  &  Brewster,  Printers. 
1824. 


DISTRICT  OF  MASSACHUSETTS:  to  wtt. 

District   Clerk's  Office. 

BE  IT  REMEMBERED,  that  on  the  second  day  of  August,  A.  D.  1824,  in  the  forty-ninth 

year  of  the  Independence  of  the  United  States  of  America,  Samuel  T.  Armstrong,  of  the  said 

District,  has  deposited  in  this  office  the  title  of  a  book,  the  right  whereof  he  claims  as  Pi-oprietor, 

in  the  words  following,  to  wit: 

"A  Treatise  on  the  Divine  Nature,  exhibiting  the  distinction  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit.     By  Huraphiey  Moore,  Pastor  of  the  Church  in  Milford,  N.  H."' 

In  contoi-mity  to  the  Act  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  intitled,  "An  act  for  the  en- 
cotuagement  of  learning,  by  securing  the  copies  of  maps,  charts  and  books,  to  the  authors  and 
propnetors  of  such  copies,  during  the  times  therein  mentioned;"  and  also  to  an  act,  intitled,  "An 
act  supplementary  to  an  Act,  intitled.  An  Acf  for  the  encouragement  of  learning,  by  securing 
the  copies  of  maps,  charts  and  books,  to  the  authors  and  propnetors  of  such  copies  during  the 
times  therein  mentioned;  and  extending-  the  benefits  thereof  to  the  arts  of  designmg,  engi-aving 
and  etching  historical,  and  other  prints." 

JNO.  W.  DAVIS, 
Clerk  of  the  District  of  Massachusetts. 


PREFACE. 


I  HE  desiga  of  the  author  of  the  following  work  is  to  offer 
to  the  public  a  brief  and  systematical  treatise  on  the  Divine 
^  Nature,  exhibiting  the  distinction  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit.  However  much  has  been  written  on  this  subject, 
and  however  ably  it  has  been  executed,  the  writer  of  these 
sheets  has  seen  no  one  publication,  which  has  examined  all 
the  principal  sources  of  evidence  of  this  prominent  doctrine 
of  the  Scriptures.  To  have  a  single  treatise,  which  will 
give  a  connected  view  of  the  leading  evidences  of  the  dis- 
tinctions in  the  Divine  Nature,  appears  to  be  an  object  of 
great  importance.  Whether  any  thing  has  been  done  in  this 
volume  to  effect  this  object,  it  is  submitted  to  a  candid 
public. 

The  author  is  aware  that  in  some  points  he  differs  from 
most  Trinitarian  writers;  but  the  difference  is  of  such  a 
nature  that  it  is,  in  his  opinion,  an  additional  weight  in  their 
scale  of  evidence. 

In  writing  upon  a  subject,  which  has  been  discussed  by 
a  thousand  hands,  and  in  almost  as  many  ways,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  avoid  crossing  the  tracks  of  many;  and  in  attempt- 
ing to  establish  and  defend  what  is  supposed  to  be  truth,  it 
is  sometimes  necessary  to  notice  and  refute  opinions,  which 
militate  against  it.  In  the  following  treatise  it  has  been 
designed  to  avoid,  as  much  as  possible,  a  controversial  method 


IV  PREFACE. 

of  discussion;  and  if  the  arguments  and  manner  used  do  not 
carry  conviction  to  the  minds  of  any  of  different  sentiments, 
it  is  hoped  that  they  will  not  excite  asperity. 

It  is  the  object  of  the  author  to  prove  from  the  Sacred 
Scriptures  a  threefold  distinction  in  the  Divine  Nature,  reveal- 
ed by  the  names.  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit.  He  has 
not  attempted  to  shew  how  these  things  can  be;  but  merely 
to  shew  that  these  things  are  revealed.  Though  the  Divine 
Plurality,  like  the  Divine  Existence,  is  incomprehensible  by 
finite  minds;  yet  there  is  nothing  in  it,  which  anyone  can 
say  is  more  contradictory,  or  inconsistent,  than  the  distinc- 
tions in  human  nature. 

The  term  person,  as  it  is  often  applied  to  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Spirit,  and  the  expression,  three  persons  in  the  Godhead, 
have  been  cautiously  avoided,  unless  they  have  occurred  in 
quotations.  This  language  is  offensive  to  many,  because  it 
conveys  to  their  minds  (though  not  intended  by  those,  who 
use  it)  an  idea  of  separation  in  the  Divine  Nature,  so  that 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  instead  of  being  one,  appear  to 
them  to  be  three  Gods.  There  is  no  inconvenience  in  avoid- 
ing this  phraseology,  and  it  is  abundantly  sufficient  to  prove 
that  each  is  divine,  without  attempting  to  prove  that  each 
distinctly  is  God. 

It  has  not  been  attempted  to  prove,  nor  has  it  been  taken 
for  granted,  that  the  Humanity  and  Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ 
constitute  either  one,  or  more  persons.  He  is  "one  Lord." 
It  appears  to  be  inexpedient  to  predicate  that  of  him,  which 
the  Scriptures  do  not  predicate,  and  which  unnecessarily 
excites  opposition  to  the  doctrine  of  his  divinity.  If  the 
term  Person,  be  applied  to  him  in  both  natures,  it  is  certain 
that  its  signification  is  different  from  what  it  is  in  any  other 
application.  It  ought  to  be  considered  that  the  intimate  con- 
nexion of  his  divinity  and  humanity,  does  not  destroy  their 
essential  distinction. 

The  essay  on  the  Atonement  is  brief;  but  enough  is  said 
to  shew  its  connexion  with  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  the 
view   given  of  its  mailer,    will,   it  is  believed,  help  to  re- 


PREFACE.  V 

move  the  most  formidable  objections,  which  are  brought 
against  it. 

Much  has  been  written,  and  some  has  been  very  ably  writ- 
ten on  the  Sonship  of  Jesus  Christ.  It  does  not  appear  to 
be  necessary  to  prove  that  his  relationship  to  the  Father, 
which  is  expressed  by  the  relative  term  Son,  was  produced 
either  in  eternity,  or  in  time.  If  it  were  ever  produced, 
there  was  a  period  in  duration,  in  which  it  did  not  exist;  and 
when  it  came  into  existence,  a  change  in  the  Divine  Nature 
^must  have  taken  place.  Let  it  be  admitted  that  the  three 
distinctions  in  the  Divine  Nature  always  existed;  and  that 
they  have  been  revealed  by  the  names  of  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit;  let  the  attention  be  fixed  exclusively  on  the 
Divine  Nature,  not  on  its  official  capacities,  nor  on  its  union 
with  humanity,  and  it  appears  that  all  debate  on  the  subject 
would    terminate. 

In  the  essay  on  the  Authority  of  Jesus  Christ,  it  is  shewn 
that  there  is  an  essential  ditference  between  power  and  au- 
thorily;  and  this  distinction,  which  is  warranted  by  the 
original  Greek,  is  considered  a  refutation  of  the  opinion  of 
those,  who  maintain  that  power  was  imparted  by  the  Father 
to  the  Son, 

The  vievvof  the  Mediatorial  Office  of  the  Savior,  removes, 
it  is  believed,  some  objections,  which  are  brought  against 
the  Trinitarian  sclieme. 

The  Opinions  of  the  Christian  Fathers,  are  taken  from 
Mosheim's  Ecclesiastical  History,  and  from  Milner's  History 
of  the  Church  of  Christ.  It  is  unnecessary  to  make  any 
prefatory  remarks  on  the  other  numbers  of  the  work.  The 
reader  will  easily  discover  their  design  and  weight. 

It  may  appear  to  many  to  be  entirely  superfluous  to  add 
another  publication  to  the  man}',  which  have  ah-eady  been 
made  upon  tliis  subject.  Cut  it  ougiit  to  be  considered  that 
as  long  as  this  doctrine  is  assailed  by  its  enemies,  it  must  be 
defended  by  its  friends;  and  that  the  latter  must  be  as  inde- 
fatigable and  persevering  in  their  effi^rts  as  the  former.  The 
same  arguments,  presented  in  different  points   o{  view,  and 


VI  PREFACE, 

variously  arranged  and  combined,  will  produce  diflferent 
effects;  and  when  others,  if  sound,  are  added,  they  give  im- 
pulse to  those,  which  have  gone  before.  At  the  present 
juncture,  when  opposition  is  powerful  and  active,  it  does 
not  become  the  soldiers  of  the  cross  merely  to  stand  on 
the  ground,  which  their  fathers  valiantly  defended,  and 
use  only  their  arms,  and  their  method  of  warfare;  they 
must  keep  pace  with  the  pr-ogress  of  their  opponents; 
search  out  all  their  varied  modes  of  attack;  and  learn  from 
the  skill  of  the  enemy  how  to  repel  their  assaults.  They 
must  open  the  Magazine  of  divine  truth;  take  arms  from 
every  apartment;  and  when,  with  a  helmet,  or  a  shield,  or 
a  buckler,  or  a  sword,  severally,  they  cannot  prevail,  let 
them  take  the  whole  armor  of  God,  and  they  will  bear  down 
all  opposition.  To  drop  the  figure,  when  evidences  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  drawn  from  one,  or  a  few  sources, 
are  resisted,  let  every  source  of  evidence  be  opened;  let 
every  argument  be  brought  to  its  place;  let  the  whole  be 
marshalled,  and  they  will  not,  they  cannot,  be  ineffectual. 
Like  the  Grecian  phalanx,  they  will  be  not  only  impenetra- 
ble; but  they  will  break  through  the  line  of  opposition. 

The  following  work  is  now  committed  to  an  intelligent 
and  candid  public,  and  commended  to  the  blessing  of  Him, 
whose  honor  and  cause  it   is  designed  to  vindicate. 


CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

The  existence  of  God,            -            -            -            -  9 

The  Unity  of  God,            -             -             ...  is 

Plurality  in  the  Divine  Nature,            ...  25 

On  the  Father,                    -             -                        -            -  39 

In  what  sense  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God,           .              .  46 

Divine  names  given  to  Christ,                   -             -            -  82 

Divine  attributes  ascribed  to  Christ,      -             -             -  95 

Christ  the  Author  of  Creation,                   -            -            -  109 

Christ  possesses  divine  authority,         -            -            -  119 

Divine  honors  given  to  the  Son  of  God,  -  -  135 
Christ's   raising  the  dead  and  judging  the  world,  are 

evidences  of  his  divinity,               -             -            -  151 

On  the  humiliation  and  exaltation  of  Jesus  Christ,  -  160 
Christ's  divinity  argued  from  the  place  he  holds  in  our 

system  of  religion,  and  in  believers'  hearts,         -  168 

Christ  the  Author  of  salvation,               -            -            -  180 

On  the  Mediatorial  office  of  Jesus  Christ,                     -  187 

Christ  the  Angel  of  the  Covenant,  -  -  -  197 
The  opinions  of  the  ancient  Jews  respecting  the  Son  of 

God, 


218 


VIU  CONTENTS. 

PAGE 

The  opinions  of  the  Christian  Fathers  respecting  Jesus 

Christ, 227 

On  the  Atonement  of  Christ,  ...  249 

On  the  Humanity  of  Christ,  -  -  -  271 

A  summary   View  of  the  evidences   of   the    divinity  of 

Jesus  Christ, 282 

On  the  Distinction   and  Divinity    of  the  Holy  Spirit,  300 
The    connexion  of  Divine   Plurality   with   other  doc- 
trines of  the  Sacred  Scriptures,               -            -  329 


TREATISE. 


THE  EXISTENCE  OF  GOD, 


The  divine  existence  is  an  interesting  subject  of  con- 
templation. It  concerns  every  intelligent  creature  to 
know  from  whom  he  has  derived  his  being;  and  to 
whom  he  is  responsible.  It  is  important  to  know 
"whether  nature  and  her  laws  are  self-existent  and  in- 
dependent, or  derived  their  existence  and  support 
from  a  Creator.  It  is  important  to  know  whether 
events  occur  under  the  capricious  control  of  chance;  or 
under  the  established  laws  of  an  infinitely  wise  Sove- 
reign. To  form  correct  sentiments  on  these  points,  it 
is  necessary  to  admit,  or  establish  by  a  process  of  ar- 
gumentation, the  existence  of  God.  This  first  princi- 
ple of  religion  is  established  in  the  volume  of  nature, 
and  in  the  volume  of  inspiration.  It  has  been  demon- 
strated and  defended  by  champions  of  Divmity  in 
every  age.  But  the  subject  has  not  lost  any  of  its  im- 
portance by  length  of  time;  nor  hns  it  been  exhaust- 
ed by  the  most  able  discussion.  The  learning  and 
genius  of  every  future  age  will  find  full  scope  in  con- 
templating, and  discussing  this  interesting,  this  infjnite 
subject. 

2 


10  THE    EXISTENCE    OF    GOD. 

A  variety  of  arguments  offer  their  assistance  in 
proof  of  the  existence  of  God.  The  inanimate,  and 
brutal  creation,  and  our  own  existence  are  evidences 
of  an  independent  first  Cause.  "The  invisible  things 
of  him  from  the  creation  of  the  world  are  clearly 
seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  that  are  made, 
even  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead."  In  every 
part  of  the  natural  world,  there  is  a  continual  succes- 
sion of  changes.  The  face  of  the  earth  assumes,  at 
every  revolving  season,  a  new  aspect.  One  growth  of 
the  vegetable  kingdom  comes  forward,  matures,  de- 
clines, dies,  putrifies,  and  gives  nourishment  to  a  suc- 
ceeding crop.  Of  the  brutal  creation  individuals  are 
continually  perishmg;  and  others  take  their  place.  In 
the  rational  world  one  generation  passeth  away  and 
another  taketh  its  place.  This  mutation  among  the 
different  orders  of  beings  proves  that  they  are  not 
self-existent;  that  they  are  not  eternal;  and  proves,  of 
course,  that  they  derived  their  existence  from  a  Crea- 
tor. Because,  what  is  changeable  is  subject  to  dissolu- 
tion and  extinction.  What  is  subject  to  fall  into  non- 
existence might,  without  contradiction  or  absurdity  in 
the  supposition,  have  been  in  that  state.  It  follows,  con- 
sequently, that  all  things,  which  are  mutable  may  have 
had  a  beginning,  and  an  author  of  their  existence.  As 
substances,  which  are  changeable  in  their  nature  are 
not  self-existent,  it  follows  that  they  must  have  had 
an  origin,  and  a  Creator. 

Between  the  different  parts  of  the  natural  world 
there  is  a  mutual  connexion  and  dependence.  The 
different  particles  of  matter,  which  compose  this 
globe,  are  united  with,  and  rest  upon  each  other. 
The  vegetable  kingdom  springs  from  the  earth,  and 
is  supported  by  the  elements.  The  irrational  and  the 
rational  world  derive  their  origin  from  a  parental 
stock;  and  are  supported  by  the  productions  of  the 
earth.  A  series  of  connected  links  of  dependencies 
cannot  make  an  independent  chain  of  beings.  De- 
pendence may   be  traced  from  one  thing  to  another; 


THE    EXISTENCE    OF    GOD.  1  I 

irom  the  smallest  particle  of  matter  up  to  the  great- 
est object,  which  falls  within  the  compass  of  human 
sight;  and  the  question  will  arise,  on  what  does  this 
depend?  Rise  as  high  on  this  ascending  series  as  im- 
agination can  soar,  and  the  same  question  will  return, 
till  we  fix  on  that  Being,  who  is  uncreated,  eternal,  and 
self-existent.  Ttiis  is  the  central  point,  from  which 
every  thing  proceeds;  to  which  every  thing  gravitates, 
and  by  which  every  thing  is  sustained. 

In  the  natural  world  there  are  evident  marks  of  de- 
sign, of  wise  design.  There  is  a  just  proportion  be- 
tween the  different  parts  of  creation.  The  mountains 
are  weighed  in  scales  and  the  hills  in  a  balance.  So 
exactly  equipoised,  are  the  spheres,  which  compose 
our  system,  that  they  perform  their  rotations,  and 
revolutions  in  stated  times.  This  curiously  organized 
machine  was  not  fitted  up  merely  to  make  a  display 
of  mechanical  skill.  It  is  calculated  to  answer  the 
most  valuable  purposes.  There  is  a  happy  subservi- 
ency between  the  different  parts  of  the  system.  The 
inanimate  part  of  the  world  affords  support  to  the 
brutal  creation;  and  both  afford  support  and  enjoyment 
for  mankind.  The  earth  is  covered  with  a  great  vari- 
ety of  the  richest  productions;  the  heavens  are  spread 
out  like  a  curtain;  and  ornamented  with  shinins"  and 
useful  orbs.  The  clemenis  are  combined  to  sustain 
the  life,  and  promote  the  enjoyment  of  all  classes  of 
creatures,  from  the  smallest  insect  to  the  lord  of  this 
lower  world.  It  is  impossible  to  account  for  this  just 
proportion,  this  mutual  subserviency  of  different  parts; 
and  this  wise  design  in  every  part,  unless  we  (race 
them  all  to  an  infinitely  wise  Creator  and  Governor. 
When  we  see  a  machine  of  curious  construction,  and 
calculated  for  some  valuable  purpose,  we  never  suj> 
pose  that  it  derived  its  origin  from  a  casual  combina- 
tion of  parts.  But  we  trace  it  to  mechanical  skill  and 
design.  With  equal  propriety  we  may  trace  the 
great  machine  of  the  universe  to  the  incomparable 
skill,  and  benevolent  design  of  a  divine  Arlist. 


12  THE    EXISTENCE    OP    dOD. 

The  occurrence  of  events,  which  cannot  be  con- 
trolled bj  human  power,  and  the  accomphshment  of 
ends  by  means  directly  contrary  to  those,  which  hu- 
man wisdom  ernolojs,  are  an  argument  in  favor  of  the 
existence  of  God.  The  rise  of  vapor,  the  formation 
of  clouds,  the  fall  of  rain,  the  artillery  of  the  skies,  the 
succession  of  day  and  night,  the  rotation  of  the  sea- 
sons, the  rise,  progress,  and  decline  of  the  vegetable 
kingdom,  manifest  a  superhuman  power.  Human 
wisdom  is  often  employed  to  effectuate  some  design. 
All  the  energies  of  the  mind  are  called  into  operation 
for  the  invention  of  means  to  ensure  success.  Exer- 
tion is  so  employed  and  a  train  of  events  is  so  ar- 
ranged, that  not  a  doubt  of  success  obscures  the  pros- 
pect. But  it  frequently  happens  that  the  wisdom  of 
the  wise  is  brought  to  nought;  that  events  take  a 
retrograde  course;  and  the  most  sanguine  expecta- 
tions are  blasted.  As  if  nature  had  changed  her  laws, 
the  most  promising  circumstances  become  adverse; 
and  the  design,  which  was  almost  accomplished, 
proves  abortive.  On  the  other  hand,  when  adverse 
events  take  place  in  rapid  succession;  when  nothing 
but  the  severest  trials  appear  in  prospect;  and  it  is 
beyond  human  power  to  turn  the  current  of  events, 
something  unforeseen  takes  place,  stays  the  progress 
of  adversity,  and  discloses  delightful  prospects.  His- 
tory, both  sacred  and  profane,  give  abundant  evidence 
of  the  general  government  and  special  interposition  of 
a  Being,  infinitely  more  powerful  and  wise,  than  the 
most  exalted  creature. 

The  general  sentiment  of  mankind  is  in  favor  of  the 
existence  of  God.  It  is  probable  that  every  nation 
and  tribe  on  earth  believe  the  existence  of  a  supreme 
Being.  However  remote  from  each  other,  and  how- 
ever destitute  of  intercourse  with  the  rest  of  the 
world,  they  all  appear  to  coincide  in  this  one  senti- 
ment,— there  is  a  God.  The  Creator  has  not  left 
himself  without  witness.  He  originally  impressed  his 
imasfc  upon  liumanitv.     \N hen ^this  moral  likeness  was 


THE    EXISTENCE    OP     GOD.  13 

effaced,  a  fearful  belief  of  his  existence  still  remained. 
This  sentiment  mu^it  have  been  generally  engraven 
upon  'the  human  mind;  or  irresistible  evidence  from 
the  works  of  nature  must  have  been  communicated  to 
the  senses.  Those,  who  have  traced  the  works  of  na- 
ture; viewed  her  operations;  and  studied  her  laws, 
have  inferred  that  they  depend  on  a  first  Cause. 
The  untutored  tribes  of  the  wilderness,  without  any 
regular  process  of  argumentation,  have  drawn  the 
same  conclusion.  The  learned  and  the  barbarian 
have  traced  the  footsteps  of  the  Deity  on  earth;  and 
have  read  his  name  in  the  firmament  written  with  let- 
ters of  light. 

Further,  mankind  have  always  felt  a  dependence 
on  some  remote  cause;  they  have  felt  a  consciousness 
of  responsibility;  and  they  have  always  looked  to 
some  being  as  the  object  of  their  greatest  fears,  or  of 
their  greatest  hopes.  A  consciousness  of  right  and 
wrong  is  inherent  in  the  human  mind.  The  Gentiles 
had  this  law  written  in  their  hearts,  their  conscience 
also  bearing  witness.  As  the  instinct  of  brutes  ena- 
bles them  to  distinguish  between  salubrious  and  nox- 
ious food,  and  instigates  them  to  self-delence,  or  to 
flee  from  danger;  so  a  moral  sense  in  man  distinguish- 
es between  good  and  evil;  and  would  persuade  him 
to  contend  against  spiritual  enemies,  or  escape  from 
them.  This  moral  sense  dwells  not  on  abstract  prin- 
ciples, but  extends  its  views  to  that  Being  who  is  the 
Standard  of  moral  excellence,  the  supreme  Arbiter 
of  moral  actions,  the  Disposer  of  retributions. 

Some  have  argued  against  nature,  against  conscious- 
ness, against  reason,  against  the  senses;  and  they  have 
concluded  that  there  is  no  God,  On  the  boundless 
regions  of  chance  they  find  the  origin,  the  support 
and  control  of  every  thing.  According  to  their  own 
principles,  it  was  by  chance  they  formed  this  senti- 
ment; by  chance  they  may  change  it;  and  if  tlicy 
should  fall  into  the  belief  of  a  God,  they  will  find  it  to 
be  not  an  act  of  chance,  but  a  solemn  realitv.     These 


14  THE   EXISTENCE    OF   GOl>. 

aberrations  from  the  great  mass  of  mankind  prove 
that  there  are  established  laws,  from  which  thej  devia- 
ted; and  thev  prove  that  there  may  be  monsters  no 
less  in  the  intellectual,  than  in  the  brutal  world.  The 
general  sentiment  of  mankind  furnishes  abundant 
proof  that  there  is  a  God;  and  that  he  has  given  evi- 
dence of  his  existence. 

The  sacred  scriptures  notonly  declare  that  there  is 
a  God,  but  they^re  themselves  an  evidence  of  his 
existence.  In  every  production  we  look  for  an  ade- 
quate cause.  What  is  not  superior  to  human  power 
may  be  attributed  to  that  power.  But  what  far  ex- 
ceeds human  exction  must  be  traced  to  a  hifijher 
cause.  That  system  of  religion,  recorded  in  the  Bible, 
infinitely  exceeds  any  human  production.  The  inge- 
nuity of  man  has  often  been  tried  to  form  a  system  of 
religion;  but  their  best  productions  have  betrayed 
the  vreakness,  or  baseness  of  their  authors.  But  the 
christian  system  displays  a  depth  of  wisdom,  to  which 
human  ingenuity  can  never  attain,  and  which  it  can 
never  fathom.  Its  morality  is  unblemished.  Its  pie- 
ty is  pure  and  fervent.  Its  exhibitions  of  the  Deity 
are  indescribably  sublime.  Its  method  of  salvation 
embraces,  at  once,  the  most  striking  displays  of  wis- 
dom, power,  and  goodness.  Its  retributions  are  ad- 
mirably calculated  to  animate  the  hopes  and  rouse 
the  fears  of  the  human  soul.  The  more  its  parts  are 
examined  and  compared,  the  more  visible  will  be 
their  harmony.  The  more  minutely  it  is  investigated, 
the  more  clearly  will  its  perfection  appear.  The 
deeper  researches  are  made  into  this  system,  the 
more  amazing  will  appear  its  length  and  breadth,  its 
height  and  depth.  When  human  wisdom  has  gone 
to  its  utmost  extent,  it  can  only  stand  on  the  borders 
of  this  divine  system;  admire  its  amazing  dimensions; 
and  exclaim,  "O  the  depth  of  the  riches,  both  of  the 
wisdom  and  knowledge  of  God!" 

In  the  formation  of  substance  out  of  nothing,  and  in 
the  support  of  the  universe  are  the  highest  conceivable 


THE    EXISTENCE    OF    GOD.  15 

displays  of  power.  Almighty  power  alone  coul^ 
create  and  support  the  world.  The  organization  ofthe 
universe;  its  regulations;  the  correspondence  and  sub- 
serviency of  its  various  parts;  the  control  of  events, 
by  which  important  ends  are  attained  by  indirect 
means,  manifest  a  wisdom  unlimited  m  degree,  and 
in  its  operation.  The  abundant  means  of  support, 
convenience  and  delight,  which  are  bestowed  on  man- 
kind; the  connexion  of  the  highest  happiness  with 
duty;  the  means,  which  are  employed  to  repair  the 
ruins  of  human  nature;  the  sacrifice  which  was  made 
for  rebellious  creatures,  and  the  provision,  which  is 
made  for  their  future  enjoyment,  are  the  most  striking 
displays  of  benevolence  and  goodness.  Nothing  but 
mercy  and  love,  which  knew  no  bounds,  could  have 
made  such  communications  to  this  ungrateful,  this  re- 
bellious world.  The  Being,  in  whom  these  infinite 
perfections  dwell,  is  the  Creator,  the  Governor  and 
Savior  of  the  world.     He  is  God. 


THE   UNITY   OF  GOD. 


The  existence  of  God  is  the  foundation  of  religion. 
He  is  the  Author  of  all  other  beings.  He  supports 
all  the  works  of  creation.  His  will  is  the  law  of  his 
creatures.  His  law  is  not  established  by  an  arbitrary 
decree;  but  it  is  founded  on  those  principles  of  moral 
fitness,  which  are  coincident  with  the  relationship  of 
beings;  and  which  are  immutable.  To  do  justly,  and 
to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly,  did  not  become 
duties  because  they  were  required;  but  they  were  re- 
quired because  they  were  duties.  Had  there  been  no 
God,  there  would  have  been  no  beings;  no  relation- 
ship between  beings;  no  moral  fitness  connected  with 
such  relationship.  But  as  there  is  a  God,  and  he  is 
the  Author  of  all  creatures,  he  is  the  foundation  of 
the  connexion  subdisting  between  beings;  he  is  the 
foundation  of  the  principles  of  moral  right  which  are 
inseparable  from  such  connexion.  Agreeably  to  the 
nature  of  his  creatures,  and  agreeably  to  his  own  holy 
nature,  he  formed  a  system  of  religion.  He  estab- 
•  lished  in  human  nature  a  perceptibility  of  the  divine 
Existence;  and  implanted  in  the  soul  a  sense  of  moral 
obligation. 

Mankind  are  conscious  of  responsibility.  They 
perceive  that  they  did  not  originate  themselves;  their 
possessions;  their  privileges;  their  enjoyments.  They 
perceive  that  the  Being,  who  made  these  communi- 
cations, has  a  just  claim  on  them;  and  that  they  are 
under  a  correspondent  obligation.     This  general  sen- 


THE     UNITY    OF    GOD.  17 

timent  of  responsibility  was  impressed  upon  the  mind 
by  the  Creator;  and  proves  that  he  is  not  only  the 
Author  of  a  system  of  rehgion;  but  proves  that  he  is 
the  Author  of  rehgious  sentiment  in  the  heart. 

The  opinions  which  men  form  of  God,  give  a  deci- 
sive character  to  their  rehgious  system.  If  they  form 
correct  ideas  of  his  nature,  character,  government  and 
offices,  they  form,  generally,  correct  ideas  of  the 
whole  system  of  religion.  If  they  have  incorrect  ideas 
of  the  Deity,  they  are  generally  defective  in  their  re- 
ligious sentiments.  If  they  believe  that  he  is  the  only 
living  and  true  God,  they  believe  that  he  alone  is  enti- 
tled to  religious  homage.  If  they  have  exalted  ideas 
of  the  divine  nature,  they  have  humiliating  concep- 
tions of  humanity.  If  they  believe  divine  sovereignty, 
they  believe  human  dependence.  If  they  believe 
that  God  is  the  only  Savior,  they  trust  only  in  him. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  they  believe  there  is  a  multi- 
plicity of  deities,  they  divide  their  religious  homage 
among  them.  They  practise  idolatry.  If  they  be- 
lieve that  God  does  not  notice  the  affairs  of  mortals, 
they  do  not  venerate  the  divine  law;  their  hopes  and 
fears  are  not  excited  by  the  promise,  or  threatening 
of  retribution.  The  Heathen  have  generally,  if  not 
universally,  believed  the  existence  of  a  multiplicity  of 
gods.  They  have  ascribed  to  them  various  natures 
and  characters;  and  they  have  varied  their  worship 
and  service  according  to  the  ideas  they  had  formed 
of  their  respective  natures.  To  one  they  have  offer- 
ed the  fruits  of  the  earth.  To  another  they  have 
made  presentations  of  indecency.  To  another  they 
have  offered  human  sacrifices;  varying  their  offerings 
according  to  the  supposed  nature  and  pleasure  of 
their  deities. 

Those,  who  believe  Christianity  is  a  divine  revela- 
tion, form  various  ideas  of  God.  This  variety  of  sen- 
timent upon  this  fundamental  article  of  religion  affects 
their  creed  through  the  whole  system.  The  guilt  of 
sin  is  measured  by  the  dignity  and  holiness  of  that 
3 


18  J'HE    UNITY    OF    GOD. 

Being,  against  whom  it  is  committed.  The  value  of 
the  atonement  is  estimated  not  only  by  the  evil  of  sin; 
but  by  the  excellence  and  capacity  of  him,  who  made 
the  sacrifice.  The  ideas  formed  of  future  reward 
and  punishment  correspond  with  the  sentiments  en- 
tertained of  the  Deity.  Trace  all  human  creeds,  and 
it  will  be  found  that  all  their  features  take  their 
peculiarities  from  the  belief  of  the  first  article  of 
religion. 

It  is  of  the  highest  importance,  therefore,  to  form 
correct  ideas  of  God.  It  is  not  expected  that  finite 
minds  can  form  adequate  conceptions  of  the  divine 
nature;  or  of  the  infinitude  of  his  attributes.  But  it  is 
necessary  to  believe  there  is  such  a  nature  possessing 
such  attributes.  The  deity  is  the  basis  of  religion; 
and  the  opinion  formed  of  him  is  the  chief  corner 
stone  in  a  beHever's  creed. 

In  the  formation  of  every  argument  it  is  necessary 
to  lay  down  correct  premises;  because  on  them  the 
conclusion  depends.  In  every  science  it  is  necessary 
to  have  a  knowledge  of  its  first  principles.  These  are 
the  basis  of  the  whole  system.  In  the  science  of 
Theology,  as  in  all  other  sciences,  there  are  funda- 
mental truths,  which  must  be  admitted  or  proved,  be- 
fore inquiries  can  be  prosecuted  with  success.  The 
most  important  of  these,  and  Avhich  claims  the  first 
attention,  is,  the  unity  of  God. 

1.  The  first  argument,  which  offers  itself  in  proof 
of  this  truth,  is,  there  appears  to  be  no  need  of  more 
than  one  God.  In  treating  subjects  philosophically  it 
is  correct  to  admit  no  more  causes,  than  are  necessa- 
ry to  account  for  the  efTects  produced.  One  Beiiig 
of  almighty  power  is  sufficient  to  create  the  world. 
One  Being  of  infinite  wisdom  is  sufficient  to  organize 
it,  and  form  a  constitution  for  its  government.  One 
Being  of  infinite  goodness  is  competent  to  the  admin- 
istration of  its  laws.  The  same  Being,  who  created, 
organized  and  supports  one  world,  can  multiply  them 
to  any  extent  he  pleases.     It  is  no  harder  to  conceive 


THE    UNITY    OF    GOD.  19 

of  infinite  attributes  residing  in  one  Being,  than  to  con- 
ceive of  them  residing  in  many  beings.     As  all  the  eA, 
fects,  which  are  visible,  or  fall  within  the  compass  or 
human  apprehension,   may  be  traced   to  one  Cause, 
possessing  infinite  perfections,  there  is  no  necessity  of 
inferring  more  than  one. 

2.  The  unity  of  God  is  argued  from  the  harmony 
and  mutual  subserviency  of  different  parts  of  the 
world;  and  from  the  uniformity  of  its  government. 
There  is  a  just  proportion  between  the  various  parts 
of  the  world.  The  elements  are  so  adjusted,  that 
one  does  not  prevail  against  another.  The  globe  is 
wisely  balanced  with  earth  and  water.  The  spheres, 
which  compose  this  system,  are  so  exactly  propor- 
tioned as  to  size  and  distance,  that  they  perform  their 
revolutions  with  the  greatest  precision.  There  is  a 
remarkable  correspondence  and  subserviency  between 
the  different  parts  of  the  world;  between  different 
classes  of  animals;  and  between  the  brutal  and  the  in- 
telligent creation.  The  face  of  the  earth  is  agreeably 
and  usefully  variegated  with  hills  and  vallies.  There 
is  a  happy  subserviency  between  the  atmosphere, 
earth,  and  water.  The  different  parts  of  this  system 
so  correspond  that  they  are  mutually  beneficial.  The 
sun  enlightens  and  warms  the  earth.  The  moon  and 
the  host  of  heaven,  not  only  adorn  the  canopy  of  the 
skies,  but  they  shed  their  milder  rays.  The  regular 
succession  of  day  and  night  promotes  the  growth  of 
the  vegetable  kingdom;  and  affords  a  pleasing  and 
refreshing  variety  to  human  nature.  The  rotation  of" 
the  seasons  is  wisely  calculated  to  bring  forward  and 
mature  the  productions  of  the  earth,  and  to  restore 
its  wasted  strength. 

The  vegetable  world  affords  support  to  a  great  part 
of  the  animal  kingdom.  Every  class  of  animals  finds 
subsistence  in  its  natural  situation.  Different  species 
of  animals  are  mutually  useful.  Some  afford  support 
to  others.  If  the  Author  of  nature  had  paused  here; 
and  had  gone   no  further,   his  work  might  have  ap- 


20  THE    UNITY    OF    GOD. 

peared  marvellously  great,  but  he  would  have  mani- 
fested no  wise,  nor  important  design.  The  vast  ap- 
paratus of  the  natural  world  is  calculated  and  appears 
to  be  designed  ultimately  for  the  use  and  enjoyment 
of  man.  The  vegetable  and  animal  part  of  the  world 
afford  their  productions  for  his  service,  convenience 
and  delight. 

There  is  a  uniformity  of  government  in  the  natural 
world.  The  herb  yieldeth  seed  after  its  kind.  Ev- 
ery class  of  animals  preserve  their  similarity  of  ap- 
pearance, nature  and  habits.  They  also  retain  dis- 
tinguishing peculiarities.  Seed  time  and  harvest, 
summer  and  winter,  heat  and  cold,  are  established  by 
a  perpetual  decree.  If,  from  year  to  year,  there  be 
some  difference  in  the  time  of  productions,  and  some 
slight  variations  from  the  ordinary  course  of  events, 
it  does  not  militate  against  the  uniformity  of  divine 
government;  but  it  only  proves  that  the  world  is  gov- 
erned by  general  laws.  In  all  the  works  of  nature, 
and  in  those  laws  which  regulate  the  world,  there 
appears  to  be  only  one  design,  the  manifestation  of 
divine  excellence  in  promoting  the  happiness  of  hu- 
man nature. 

Had  there  been  two  artists  engaged  in  creating  and 
organizing  the  world,  it  could  not  be  expected  there 
would  be  a  perfect  correspondence  and  subserviency 
of  various  parts.  It  could  not  be  expected  there 
would  be  a  unity  of  design  running  through  the  whole 
system.  It  is  not  probable  that  two  separate  powers 
Avould  perfectly  harmonize  in  any  one  method  of 
government.  They  would,  undoubtedly  have  their 
favorite  plans;  and  pursue  their  favorite  courses.  Con- 
sequently there  would  not  be  harmony  between  the 
different  parts  of  the  world;  nor  uniformity  in  the 
effects  of  their  administration.  Jealousy  might  rise 
between  these  rival  sovereigns,  and  instead  of  uniting 
to  promote  harmony,  uniformity  and  tranquillity 
through  the  system,  they  might  throw  the  whole  into 
commotion,  and  produce  the  greatest  disorder.     They 


THE    UNITY    OF    GOD.  21 

might  forget  the  interest  of  their  subjects,  and  at- 
tempt to  estabhsh  their  individual  superiority.  If 
the  two  artists  and  sovereigns  were  of  one  design,  and 
possessed  equal  perfections,  they  consequently  would 
possess  an  infinitude  of  attributes.  They  being  dis- 
tinct and  separate  beings,  each  would  possess  one  half 
of  this  infinitude.  This  supposes  that  infinite  power, 
wisdom  and  goodness  are  individually  capable  of  di- 
vision, and  separation;  that  they  are  made  up  of  parts; 
and  that  they  may  be  formed  by  a  progressive  series 
of  finite  qualities.  If  these  two  possess  the  same  kind 
of  nature;  are  united  in  design,  and  in  operation,  and 
constitute  only  one  infinitude,  they  would  not  be  two 
distinct  and  separate  existences,  but  they  would  be  lit- 
erally one  nature. 

3.  There  is  abundant  evidence  that  there  is  one 
God,  eternal,  self-existent  and  independent.  He  exists 
of  necessity;  that  is,  it  is  impossible  that  he  never 
should  have  existed;  and  it  is  impossible  that  he 
should  cease  to  exist.  There  is  a  primary  power  in 
the  universe.  It  is  impossible  that  this  power  should 
have  created  itself;  and  it  is  equally  impossible  that  it 
should  destroy  itself;  for  this  would  suppose  a  power 
superior  to  the  highest  power.  These  things  cannot 
be  predicated  of  more  than  one  power.  There  can 
be  only  one  power  necessarily  existing.  If  an  equal 
power  be  supposed  to  exist,  it  must  depend  on  the 
will  and  pleasure  of  the  first  power  for  liberty  of 
the  least  operation.  If  equals  cannot  destroy  equals, 
they  can  counteract  and  neutralize  each  other.  Con- 
sequently there  cannot  be  two  separate  independen- 
cies; two  separate  self-existencies,  nor  two  separate 
eternals. 

It  is  equally  absurd  to  suppose  there  are  inferior 
divinities.  A  divinity  has  a  divine  nature  and  divine 
attributes.  What  is  divine  is  not  circumscribed;  and 
consequently  is  infinite.  What  is  infinite  is  not  capa- 
ble of  degrees  of  comparison.  Consequently  there 
cannot    be   superior   and   inferior   divinities.      If    a 


22  THE   UNITY    OF   GOD. 

deity  be  supposed,  which  is  inferior  to  the  supreme 
God,  he  is  inferior  in  nature  and  attributes.  Dura- 
tion, which  is  inferior  to  eternity,  is  temporal.  Power 
and  wisdom  which  are  inferior  to  infinity,  are  finite. 
A  temporal  finite  being  is  a  creature,  consequently  he 
is  not  truly  a  deity. 

The  Heathen  admit  a  multiplicity  of  gods.  But 
they  esteem  one  superior  to  the  rest.  They  vary 
their  religious  honors  in  quality  and  degree  according 
to  the  supposed  excellence  of  their  respective  deities. 
It  is  not  doubted  that  the  Creator  can  and  does  dep- 
utize his  creatures  to  act  with  a  limited  authority. 
He  has  constituted  man  lord  of  this  lower  world. 
But  this  does  not  vest  him  with  a  claim  to  divine  hon- 
ors. The  prince  of  the  power  of  the  air  has  author- 
ity to  work  in  the  children  of  disobedience.  But  this 
prerogative  does  not  entitle  him  to  divine  worship. 
The  inferior  gods  of  the  Heathen,  whether  they  be 
works  of  their  own  hands,  objects  of  nature,  or  crea- 
tures of  their  imaginations,  bear  no  comparison  with 
real  Divinity;  and  they  are  not  entitled  to  divine  hon- 
ors. In  view  of  the  one  God  they  are  a  vanity 
and  a  lie. 

Mankind,  ever  since  the  apostasy,  have  been  in- 
clined to  make  lords  many  and  gods  many;  and  to 
practise  idolatry.  Even  those,  who  enjoyed  some 
rays  of  revealed  light,  loved  darkness  rather  than 
light;  and  in  the  shades  of  nature  they  fancied  simil- 
itudes of  the  Deity;  or  with  an  artist's  skill  they  con- 
trived forms,  which  called  forth  their  devotional  feel- 
ings. One  great  object  of  divine  revelation  was  to 
correct  the  world  of  this  error,  and  lead  them  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  only  living  and  true  God.  So  im- 
portant was  this  subject  that  the  first  command  of  the 
decalogue  was  directed  to  this  very  point;  "Thou  shalt 
have  no  other  gods  before  me."  God  has  often  declared 
in  his  word  that  there  is  no  other  god.  "Unto  thee  it 
was  shewed  that  thou  mightest  know  that  the  Lord  he 


THE    UNITY    OF    GOD.  23 

Is  God,  there  is  none  else  besides  him."  Solomon,  in 
his  address  to  the  people  after  his  consecrating  prayer 
in  the  temple,  uses  almost  the  same  language:  "that 
all  the  people  of  the  earth  may  know  that  the  Lord 
is  God;  and  that  there  is  none  else."  Similar  lan- 
guage is  repeatedly  used  in  the  Old  Testament. 
Christ,  who  bore  testimony  to  the  truth,  taught  the 
same  doctrine,  the  unity  of  God.  His  language  is, 
There  is  but  one  good,  that  is  God.  In  the  language 
of  the  Old  Testament,  he  said,  "The  Lord  our  God  is 
one  Lord."  Again  he  said.  This  is  life  eternal,  that 
they  might  know  thee,  the  only  true  God.  In  all  his 
devotions  he  addressed  but  one  God. 

4.  The  coincidence  of  the  various  parts  of  the 
sacred  scriptures  is  a  strong  argument  in  favor  of  the 
unity  of  their  Author.  This  volume  was  written  by 
many  hands;  at  distant  periods;  and  at  places  remote 
from  each  other.  Had  the  objects  of  the  inspired 
writers  bedn  different,  or  had  they  been  under  the 
guidance  of  different  spirits,  a  striking  contrariety 
would  have  appeared  in  their  writings.  But,  as  their 
object  is  evidently  the  same,  as  there  is  a  remarkable 
coincidence  in  their  relation  of  the  same  things,  as  there 
is  a  perfect  agreement  between  the  prophetic  writ- 
ings and  the  history  of  subsequent  events,  there  is 
the  strongest  evidence  that  their  authors  were  under 
the  direction  of  one  and  the  same  Spirit. 

Some  parts  of  the  sacred  scriptures  appear,  at  first 
view,  to  be  inconsistent;  and  other  parts  appear  to  be 
dark.  But  when  they  are  investigated,  they  appear 
consistent,  and  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament  was 
remarkably  well  calculated  for  the  Jewish  nation  till 
the  advent  of  the  Messiah.  A  knowledge  of  the 
ancient  customs  of  the  Jews,  a  knowledge  of  the  idola- 
tries of  neighboring  nations  bring  to  view  excellen- 
ces of  the  Jewish  religion,  which  are  not  discovered 
by  a  superficial  observer.  Those  parts  of  God's  word, 
which  seem  to  militate  against  each  other,  are  found 


24  THE    UNITY    OF    GOD. 

to  be  reconcilable  and  harmonious.  Those  seeming 
blemishes,  which  appear  on  the  pages  of  divine  inspi- 
ration are  only  dark  spots  on  the  vision  of  the  human 
mind.  When  the  understanding  is  purged  from 
moral  darkness  and  corruptness,  it  will  discover  the 
perfections  of  our  holy  religion;  t\  e  coincidence  of  its 
parts;  the  unity  of  its  design,  and  the  unity  of  its 
Author. 


PLURALITY   IN   THE   DIVINE    NATURE. 


After  the  apostasy  mankind  were  exceedingly 
prone  to  idolatry.  The  heathen,  in  every  age,  have 
paid  their  devotions  to  a  variety  of  deities.  Even 
the  Hebrews,  who  were  enlightened  by  divine  revela- 
tion, and  were  taught  the  existence  ot"  only  one  God, 
often  departed  from  this  knowledge,  and  ascribed 
divine  honors  to  objects  of  nature,  and  to  works  of  men's 
hands.  When  God  communicated  to  the  world  a  sys- 
tem of  religion,  it  might  well  be  expected  he  would 
guard  the  human  mind  against  this  error;  that  he 
would  distinguish  himself  from  heathen  gods;  that  he 
would  communicate  nothing  which  would  give  the 
least  countenance  to  a  multiplicity  of  deities,  or  to 
idolatry.  When  God  wrote  the  moral  law  on  tables 
of  stone,  he  commanded  first,  that  they  should  have 
no  other  gods  before  him.  The  distinguishing  char- 
acteristic of  Israel  was,  that  they  worshipped  one 
God.  Moses,  who  was  under  divine  influence,  and 
wrote  agreeably  to  the  pattern  shewn  him  by  the 
divine  Being,  guarded  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  wiity 
with  the  greatest  care,  lest  Israel  should  blend  with 
surrounding  nations;  fall  into  idolatry;  and  lose  the 
knowledge  of  the  true  God.  His  language  is,  "Hear, 
O  Israel,  the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord;  and  thou 
shalt  love  the  Lord  thy  God  with  all  thine  heart,  and 
with  all  thy  soul,  and  with  all  thy  might."  That 
these  words  might  not  depart  from  their  minds,  he 
required  them  to  bind  them  upon  their  hands;  and 
4 


20  PLURALITY    IN    THE    DIVINE    NATURE. 

that  they  should  be  as  frontlets  between  their  eyes. 
The  other  prophets  adopted  similar  language.  Christ 
supported  the  same  sentiment,  and  the  apostles  copied 
his  example. 

Notwithstanding  the  unity  of  God  is  a  prominent 
doctrine  in  the  Scriptures;  yet  both  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  contain  many  terms  and  phrases,  Avhich 
evidently  convey  an  idea  of  plurality  in  the  divine 
nature.  The  original  word  in  the  Old  Testament,  for 
the  name  God,  is  used  in  the  plural  number.  "In  the 
beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth." 
This  is  the  first  time  the  divine  name  is  used  in  the 
Bible;  and  it  is  used  in  the  plural  number,  connected 
with  a  singular  verb.  When  God  was  about  to  form 
man,  he  said,  "Let  t(s  make  man  in  our  image,  after 
our  likeness."  After  the  apostasy  of  our  first  parents, 
"The  Lord  God  said,  behold  the  man  is  become  as 
one  of  M5,  to  know  good  and  evil."  When  God  look- 
ed down  from  heaven  and  beheld  the  tower,  which 
the  children  of  men  builded,  he  said,  "Go  to,  let  iis 
go  down  and  there  confound  their  language."  God 
speaking  by  the  mouth  of  his  prophet  inquires,  "Whom 
shall  I  send.'*  Who  will  go  for  nsP''  Other  passages 
contain  the  name  of  God  in  the  plural  number. 

God  is  jealous  for  the  honor  of  his  name.  He  will 
not  give  his  glory  to  another.  He  will  have  no  other 
gods  before  him.  He  has  ever  manifested  the  great- 
est abhorrence  of  idolatry.  Why  then  did  God  re- 
veal himself  by  a  name  of  the  plural  number,  when 
he  knew  that  the  heathen,  and  even  his  peculiar  peo- 
ple were  exceedingly  prone  to  idolatry;  and  would 
greedily  catch  at  every  circumstance,  which  appeared 
to  countenance  their  favorite  worship?  Why  was  the 
doctrine  of  one  God  guarded  with  such  precision  and 
circumspection;  and  the  name  of  God  expressed  in 
the  plural  number,  as  if  there  were  gods  many?  His 
name  was  first  communicated  in  the  plural  number; 
and  lest  men  should,  from  this  circumstance,  infer  a 
multiplicity   of  gods,  it  was  expressly  declared  that 


PLURALITY    IN    THE    DIVINE    NATURE.  27 

the  Lord  God  was  one  Lord;  and  that  they  should 
have  no  other  gods.  Moses  was  undoubtedly  aware 
what  use  the  people  would  make  of  the  plurality  con- 
tained in  the  divine  name;  and  it  is  not  probable  he 
would  have  used  this  terra  excepting  under  the  sanc- 
tion of  divine  authority. 

Some  have  attempted  to  explain  away  the  meaning 
of  the  plurality  in  the  divine  name  by  considering  it 
an  imitation  of  the  royal  style.  But  there  is  no  evi- 
dence that  kings  applied  to  themselves  the  plural 
number  in  the  days  of  Moses.  We  find  no  instance, 
in  the  sacred  scriptures,  of  this  royal  mode  of  expres- 
sion till  about  a  thousand  years  after  Moses  wrote 
his  history.  Artaxerxes,  king  of  Persia,  in  answer  to 
a  letter  sent  to  him  by  his  chancellor,  scribe  and  the 
rest  of  their  companions,  says,  "The  letter  which  ye 
sent  unto  iis,  hath  been  plainly  read  before  me."  Is 
it  probable  that  God  borrowed  his  titles.  Majesty, 
most  High,  Prince,  Sovereign,  King,  from  earthly 
potentates?  Is  it  probable  that  the  Author  of  language 
is  indebted  to  marks  of  royal  honor  for  the  formation 
of  his  own  name,  or  for  the  mode  of  his  expression.'* 
Is  it  probable  that  the  Creator  copied  the  creature.'* 
When  it  is  considered  how  prone  people  were  to  deify 
works  of  art,  animals,  and  departed  spirits,  it  is  easy 
to  account  for  the  origin  of  the  custom  of  giving 
divine  titles  and  divine  honors  to  men  in  the  most 
elevated  stations.  Repeated  instances  are  found  in 
history,  in  which  men,  who  were  distinguished  for 
heroism,  and  more  distinguished  for  vain  conceit,  pre- 
tended to  be  descendants  of  the  gods;  and  assumed 
divine  prerogatives.  It  was  natural  for  them,  when 
speaking  in  the  first  person,  to  use  the  plural  number 
in  imitation  of  the  name  of  God.  It  is  not  a  little 
surprising  that  Christian  people  should  perpetuate 
this  heathenish  practice.  But  while  it  proves  the 
power  of  example,  it  likewise  proves  that  there  is  a 
certain  plurality  in  the  divine  original,  which  gave  rise 
to  this  custom. 


28  PLURALITY    IN    THE    DIVINE    NATURE. 

In  the  New  Testament  the  divine  name  is  used  in 
the  singular  number.  When  the  individuity  of  divine 
plurahty  was  distinctly  revealed,  the  more  obscure 
Hebrew  mode  of  expressing  the  divine  name  ceased. 
If  the  name  of  God  in  the  New  Testament  be  not 
used  in  the  plural  number,  a  plurality  of  singulars  is 
used,  to  which  divine  nature  is  ascribed.  This  gives 
a  clearer  view  of  plurality  in  God  than  the  ancient 
Hebrew  form  of  expression.  The  New  Testament 
was  to  be  circulated  among  the  Jews  for  the  purpose 
of  converting  them  to  Christianity.  As  they  believed 
in  only  one  God,  no  form  of  speech  would  unnecessa- 
rily be  used  by  the  writers  of  the  Christian  religion, 
which  would  convey  to  them  the  idea  of  a  multiplicity 
of  deities.  As  it  was  also  to  be  circulated  among 
heathen,  it  was  necessary  to  use  the  greatest  care  in 
the  choice  of  words,  lest  encouragement  should  be 
given  to  their  idolatry.  As  the  forms  of  speech  used 
in  the  scriptures  naturally  suggest  the  idea  of  more 
gods  than  one,  or  of  a  plurality  in  the  divine  nature; 
and  as  the  scriptures  declare  in  the  plainest  and 
strongest  terms  that  there  is  but  one  God,  it  follows 
that  there  is  a  plurality  in  his  nature. 

The  Hebrew  language  is  remarkable  for  its  sim- 
plicity, and  for  its  significancy.  Proper  names,  as 
well  as  the  names  of  a  genus  and  species,  are  often 
expressive  of  the  nature  or  properties  of  the  person 
or  thing  named.  Various  names  are  given  to  the 
Supreme  Being;  and  each  name  is  significant  of  his 
nature,  office,  or  of  some  of  his  attributes.  In  the 
first  verse  in  the  Bible  the  Hebrew  name  of  God  is 
expressive  of  his  power.  When  he  is  represented  in 
the  act  of  creation  there  is  a  striking  propriety  in 
giving  him  a  name  expressing  his  might.  When  God 
commissioned  Moses  to  lead  Israel  out  of  bondage,  he 
made  himself  known  to  him  by  a  name  signifying  inde- 
pendent existence.  At  other  times  he  revealed  him- 
self by  names  signifying  government  and  excellence. 
From   the   peculiar  significancy   of  Hebrew  names. 


PLURALITY   IN    THE    DIVINE    NATURE.  29 

especially  the  names  of  God,  an  appropriate  sense  is 
undoubtedly  to  be  given  to  the  divine  name,  when 
used  in  the  plural  number.  It  is  hard  to  conceive 
what  appropriate  sense  can  be  extracted  from  this 
mode  of  expression,  unless  it  be  a  certain  plurality  in 
the  divine  nature. 

The  principal  Jewish  cabalistic  authors,  both 
ancient  and  modern,  believed  a  plurality  in  the  nature 
of  God.  In  one  of  the  most  ancient  Jewish  books,  a 
book  said  to  be  as  ancient  as  Abraham  himself,  there 
is  this  passage.  "They  are  three  lights,  an  ancient 
light,  a  pure  lights  and  a  most  pure  light;  nevertheless 
all  these  are  only  one  God^  In  another  place,  the 
same  author,  on  the  same  subject  says,  "And  know 
ye,  the  three  high  nominations  all  are  united  together; 
and  never  are  divided."  Another  cabalistic  author 
observes,  "The  three  highest  no  eye  ever  saw,  and 
there  is  not  there  either  separation  or  division."* 

A  passage  in  Deuteronomy,  6:4,  offers  its  aid  in 
support  of  the  sentiment  under  consideration.  In  our 
translation  it  is,  "Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord,  our  God 
is  one  Lord."  A  modern  Jew,t  who  was  a  considera- 
ble critic  in  the  Hebrew  language  translates  this  pas- 
sage probably  more  justly.  "Hear,  O  Israel,  the  Lord, 
our  God,  the  Lord  is  one."  After  some  explanation  of 
this  interpretation,the  author  adds,  "Do  not  mistake  me 
and  think  that  there  are  three  Gods  of  three  different 
essences,  neither  one  God  without  the  plurality  of 
persons;  but  yet  there  is  one  only  God  in  nature  and 
essence,  artd  three  distinct  persons,  all  equal  in  power 
and  glory;  and  coequal  and  coeval  from  all  eternity." 
The  opinion  of  the  Jewish  rabbies  is  of  no  inconsid- 
erable weight  in  this  argument.  They  were  expert 
in  the  Hebrew  scriptures;  and  they  well  understood 
the  idiom  and  the  peculiar  force  of  their  own  lan- 
guage. 

The  different  works  of  the  Supreme  Being,  which 
are  recorded  in  the  sacred  scriptures,  form  an  argu- 

•  See  Monis.  t  Wem. 


30  PLURALITY    IN    THE    DIVINE    NATURE. 

ment  in  favor  of  a  plurality  in  his  nature.  It  is  re- 
corded that  God  created  the  world;  that  he  gave  a 
law  to  the  human  race;  that  the  blood  of  God  was 
shed  to  purchase  his  church;*  and  that  those  who  are 
born  again  are  born  of  God.  Here  are  three  distinct 
kinds  of  work,  the  formation  and  government  of  man, 
an  expiation  for  sin,  and  a  reparation  of  ruined  human 
nature.  God  formed  and  published  a  law  for  the 
regulation  of  human  life,  and  sanctioned  it  by  threat- 
ening punishment  for  disobedience.  The  Son  of  God 
magnified  and  honored  this  law  by  humbling  himself 
and  bearing  the  sins  of  men  in  his  own  body  on  the 
accursed  tree.  The  Spirit  of  God  sanctifies  the  hu- 
man heart,  and  restores  unto  it  the  divine  moral  like- 
ness. If  there  be  no  kind  of  plurality,  no  kind  of 
individuality  in  the  divine  nature,  then  the  same,  who 
threatened,  made  satisfaction  to  himself  to  support 
his  own  authority;  the  same,  whose  authority  was 
violated,  paid  the  ransom  and  gives  willingness  to 
accept  its  benefits.  Should  the  supreme  ruler  of  a 
nation  adopt  this  method  of  government;  should  he 
suffer  the  evil  consequences  incurred  by  his  rebellious 
subjects;  and  then  restore  them  to  his  favor,  would 
he  support  his  authority?  would  he  manifest  disap- 
probation of  rebellion?  The  same  difficulties  would 
seem  to  lie  against  divine  government,  if  there  were 
entire  singularity  in  the  divine  nature.  In  the  whole 
economy  of  redemption  there  is  abundant  evidence 
that  there  is  a  ground  in  the  divine  nature  for  mutual 

•  Acts  20:'28.  There  are  found  five  different  readings  of  this  passage,  beside 
that  of  the  received  text,  which  is  rS  655,  viz.  t5  Kugiv,  tS  X^ia-rS,  tS  Kyg/a 
6i3,  tS  6i5  Kitt  Ku^iu,  and  t5  Kug/a  net)  6s5.  VVetstein  and  Griesbach  consider 
the  evidence  to  be  in  favor  of  t5  Kvg(«.  Wakefield,  who  was  not  disposed  to 
give  his  aid  to  support  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  divinity,  prefers  the  received 
reading  rS  Si3;  but  he  is  careful  to  explain  away  all  the  natural  meaning  of  the 
text.  He  states  that  Griesbach's  testimony  respecting  the  Ethiopic  version  is 
"infamously  false."  "The  MSS.  in  which  it"  (i.  e.  tS  fisj)  "is  found  amounts 
to  fourteen,  and  it  is  quoted  or  referred  to  by  a  great  many  of  the  fathers." 
See  Middleton  on  the  Greek  article,  pp.  227—232. 

In  five  exemplaribus  legitur  Kvgin  km  flsS.  Beza.  IllustrJs  sententia  de  Deitate 
Christi,  et  unione  duarum  naturarum,  qua  uni  tribuitur  proprietas  alterius. 
Sanguis  Jesu  est  sanguis  Dei  proprius,  vi  noivocvix;  iS'mjuaircev.  See  Poole  on 
the  place. 


PLURALITY    IN    THE    DIVINE    NATURE.  31 

intercourse;  for  mutual  contract,  and  for  mutual  ful- 
filment. One  proposes,  another  accepts.  One  suppli- 
cates, another  hears  and  answers.  One  sends,  another 
is  sent;  and  the  whole  is  done  with  unity  of  design, 
unity  of  pursuit,  and  unity  of  nature. 

In  the  scheme  of  redemption   there  are  three  dis- 
tinct offices;  and   they  are  filled  by  three  of  distinct 
and  characteristic  names.  The  Father  sends  the  Son; 
the  Son  sends   the  Spirit.     The   Spirit    purifies    the 
heart.     The   Son   makes  expiation  for  sin,  and  inter- 
cession for  sinners.     The  Father   accepts  what    both 
have  done.      There  is   no  foundation  for  saying   that 
God  may  be  one  in  all  respects,  and  at  the  same  time 
may   fill    three   separate    offices.     It    appears  to  be 
inconsistent  that  God  in  simple  unity  should    act    in 
diffi:rent   offices    at    one  and   the   same    time.     It  is 
inconsistent  that  one  should  negotiate   with  himself; 
that    he   should  supplicate  himself;   mediate  between 
an  offending  party  and  himself;  and  in  a  formal  manner 
accept  his  own  transactions.     To  avoid  this  inconsist- 
ency it  appears  to  be  necessary  to  admit  a  plurality  in 
the  Deity.     It   is   equally  absurd   to  account  for  the 
different  offices  in  the  scheme  of  redemption,  filled  by 
different  ones  of  different  names,  by  personifying  par- 
ticular attributes  of  the  Deity.     It  is  hard  to  conceive 
how  the  faculties  of  the  human  mind  could  hold  inter- 
course with  each  other,  and  be  distinct  parties  in  any 
transaction.     It  is  equally  hard  to  conceive  how  in- 
dividual  divine  attributes  could   separate  themselves 
into  different   parties;  negotiate   with  each  other,  and 
each  fulfil  its   appointment.     Wisdom   could  form  a 
plan   of  salvation;   but,  without    power,  it   could   not 
carry  it  into  operation.     Power  could  effect  any  pro- 
posed design,  but  it  could  not   project  the  method  of 
its  accomplishment.       Benevolence   could    effectuate 
nothing  without   wisdom   to  devise,  and  power  to  ex- 
ecute.    A  sinHe  divine   attribute,  therefore,  cannot 
fill  any  office  in  the  work  of  redemption,  nor  perform 
the  duties  of  such  office.     This  hypothesis,  then,  does 


32  PLURALITY    IN   THE    DIVINE    NATURE. 

not  account  for  the  appearance  of  plurality  in  the 
divine  nature. 

The  opinion  and  practice  of  the  people  in  India, 
and  in  other  parts  of  the  East,  serve  to  corroborate 
this  sentiment.  "The  Hindoos  believe  in  one  god 
Brahma,  the  creator  of  all  things;  and  yet  they  rep- 
resent him  as  subsisting  in  three  persons;  and  they 
worship  one  or  other  of  these  persons  throughout 
every  part  of  India.  And  what  proves  that  they 
hold  this  doctrine  distinctly  is,  that  their  most  ancient 
representation  of  the  Deity  is  formed  of  one  body  and 
three  faces.  Nor  are  these  representations  confined 
to  India  alone;  but  they  are  to  be  found  in  other  parts 
of  the  East."* 

In  this  quarter  of  the  world  God  created  man,  and 
made  the  first  communications  of  his  will.  Here 
Christ  was  born;  and  nature,  men  and  angels  bore 
testimony  to  his  birth.  The  Hindoo  history  bears 
some  striking  features  of  the  history  of  the  gospel. 
In  India  there  have  been  discovered  vernacular  writ- 
ings, which  contain  testimonies  of  Christ.  They 
mention  a  Prince,  who  reigned  about  the  time  of  the 
Christian  era.  His  history  relates  events,  which  bear 
a  striking  resemblance  to  the  advent,  birth,  miracles, 
death  and  resurrection  of  the  Savior.  In  this  part  of 
the  world  Christ  published  the  gospel.  Here  the 
apostles  propagated  the  glad  tidings  of  salvation.  But 
before  their  decease  many  of  the  churches  of  Asia, 
became  exceedingly  corrupt  in  sentiment  and  practice. 
Religion  declined  by  degrees.  People  fell  into  idola- 
try. After  a  lapse  of  ages  the  same  people,  who 
were  distinguished  for  Christian  knowledge,  became 
grossly  ignorant  and  superstitious;  and  practised 
idolatry,  which  was  marked  with  indecency  and 
cruelty.  But  in  the  midst  of  their  ignorance  and  idol- 
atrous practice  there  were  found  some  vestiges  of 
Christianity.  Some  events,  which  occurred  when 
Christ   was  upon   earth  stood  recorded;    and   some 

*  Buchanan. 


PLURALITY    IN    THE    L>1V1NE    NATURE.  33 

doctrines  of  the  gospel  were  strikingly  represented. 
Doctrines  relating  to  the  true  God,  they  applied  to 
their  false  gods.  The  doctrine  of  the  atonement  they 
used  in  their  idolatry.  Whence  originated  these  rays 
of  Christianity  in  this  benighted  quarter  of  the  vvorld.'^ 
Whence  originated  among  them  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity  and  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement.''  These 
were  not  human  inventions.  These  were  undoubtedly 
relics  of  revealed  truth,  which  had  long  been  pre- 
served amidst  the  rubbish  of  heathenish  ignorance 
and  superstition.  These  fundamental  doctrines  of 
Christianity,  like  the  pillars  of  nature,  have  remained 
where  they  were  first  established.  The  ignorance, 
the  wickedness,  the  imaginations  of  men  have  per- 
verted these  doctrines;  but  they  never  have  destroyed 
them.  How  did  these  fundamental  principles  of 
Christiaiity  find  existence;  how  have  they  been  pre- 
served in  the  heart  of  heathenish  Asia,  if  they  were 
not  planted  there  by  their  Author,  and  supported  by 
his  power?  Let  people,  who  have  ever  lived  under 
the  sunshine  of  the  Gospel,  and  have  so  refined  it, 
that  they  have  robbed  it  of  almost  every  divine  fea- 
ture, go  to  India,  and  from  the  three-faced  idol  of  the 
poor  Hindoo,  learn  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

Plurality  in  the  divine  nature  is  a  mystery.  Some 
pretend  to  discover  mystery  in  every  part  of  scripture. 
Others  attempt  to  explain  mystery;  and  consequently 
they  explode  it.  In  treating  this  subject  it  is  neces- 
sary only  to  shew  that  the  doctrine  of  divine  plurality 
is  contained  in  the  scriptures;  and  that  it  does  not 
contradict  the  dictates  of  reason.  Mystery  signifies 
"something  above  human  intelligence;  something  aw- 
fully obscure."  It  is  not  surprising  that  the  subject 
under  consideration  should  be  above  human  appre- 
hension. It  cannot  be  expected  that  a  finite  mind 
can  comprehend  the  infinite  Spirit.  We  do  not  un- 
derstand the  mode  of  our  own  existence.  We  do  not 
understand  the  operations  of  our  own  minds.  We 
do  not  understand  the  union  of  soul  and  body;  and 


34  PLURALITY    IN    THE    DIVINE    NATURE. 

how  one  affects  the  other.  It  is  not  within  the  limits 
of  our  understandings  to  know  how  two  distinct  sub- 
stances, matter  and  spirit,  constitute  unity  of  person. 
But  we  know  that  we  have  existence,  that  we  have 
mental  exercises;  that  our  bodies  and  souls  are  united; 
and  that  they  constitute  but  one  person.  If  we  can- 
not comprehend  our  own  existence,  it  cannot  be  ex- 
pected that  we  can  comprehend  "the  degrees  or  forms 
of  the  Deity." 

The  divine  plurality  is  not  a  plurality  of  nature. 
If  there  were  a  plurality  of  divine  natures,  there 
would  be  distinct  divine  beings;  there  would  be  a 
multiplicity  of  deities.  It  would  be  a  contradiction  to 
say  that  several  divine  natures  make  but  one  divine 
nature;  that  several  Gods  make  but  one  God.  But 
it  is  not  a  contradiction  to  say  the  Father  is  God;  the 
Son  is  God;  the  Holy  Spirit  is  God;  and  these  three 
are  one. 

The  Creator,  by  the  communication  of  reason  made 
a  partial  revelation  of  himself.  All  his  other  revela- 
tions are  coincident  with  this;  or,  at  least,  they  do  not 
militate  against  it.  In  his  sacred  word  he  makes 
known  truths,  which  the  utmost  efforts  of  reason  could 
never  discover.  But  he  discloses  nothing,  which  con- 
tradicts the  dictates  of  this  power  of  the  mind.  In 
the  works  of  nature  there  is  mystery.  In  ourselves 
there  is  mystery.  It  is  not  surprising  then  that  there 
should  be  mystery  in  the  mode  of  the  divine  existence. 
A  Trinity  in  Unity  is  this  mystery. 

But  this  is  not  the  only  mystery  in  the  divine 
nature.  God's  eternity  is  above  our  comprehension 
While  vve  believe  the  existence  of  this  attribute,  Ave 
form  no  adequate  idea  of  it.  We  believe  the  self- 
existence  of  the  divine  nature.  But  as  we  are  ac- 
quainted with  only  a  series  of  dependencies,  we  have 
no  just  conception  of  absolute  independence.  God 
hears  our  supplications.  But  we  understand  not  how 
he  perceives  the  voice  of  prayer  without  the  organ 
of  hearing.     He    perceives    the    operations   of  our 


PLURALITY    L\    THE    DIVINE    NATURE.  35 

minds.  But  we  understand  not  how  a  Spirit  is  ac- 
quainted with  the  exercises,  motives  and  leehngs  of 
other  spirits.  These  are  mysteries,  and  they  are 
probably  as  far  beyond  our  reach,  as  the  doctrine  of 
Trinity  in  Unity. 

We  have  not  an  adequate  idea  of  the  plurahty  In 
the  divine  nature.  We  do  not  understand  that  ground 
of  distinction  in  the  Deity,  by  which  one  addresses 
others  of  the  same  nature;  and  all  compose  but  one 
essence.  The  scriptures  authorize  us  to  believe  this 
ground  of  distinction,  and  this  bond  of  Union.  But 
how  this  is  without  division  and  separation  of  nature, 
and  without  confusion  of  individuality  is  far  beyond 
our  deepest  research.  Omnipresence  is  an  acknowl- 
edged attribute  of  the  Deity.  God  Is  in  every  place. 
In  every  part  of  creation  he  displays  the  infinitude  of 
his  attributes;  and  he  does  this  without  division  or 
separation  of  himself-  If  it  be  rationally  admitted 
that  God  is  in  every  place,  it  is  not  contrary  to  ration- 
ality that  he  was  in  the  man  Christ  Jesus. 

Many,  by  attempting  to  explain  and  illustrate  the 
doctrine  of  divine  plurality,  have  rendered  it  more  ob- 
scure; and  have  given  it  the  appearance  of  absurdity. 
Because  the  divine  Being  speaks  in  the  three  persons, 
I,  thou,  he;  because  distinct  offices,  works  and  attri- 
butes are  attributed  to  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy 
Spirit,  it  is  concluded  there  is  ground  in  the  divine 
nature  for  distinct  personalities.  As  we  have  not 
distinct  ideas  of  divine  plurality,  it  is  impossible  to 
give  distinct  and  appropriate  names,  which  will  justly 
designate  the  individuality.  It  is  probable,  however, 
that  no  term  in  our  language  would  better  mark  the 
distinction  in  the  divine  nature,  than  the  terra  person. 
In  our  English  Testament  the  word  person  is  once 
applied  to  the  Father;  and  several  times  it  is  applied 
to  the  Son.  But  in  the  original  they  are  different 
words,  and  of  different  significations.  But  neither  ot 
them  appears  primarily  to  signify  person.  The  orig- 
inal of  the  word  person,  applied  to  the  Father  signifies 


36  PLURALITY    IN    THE    DIVINE    NATURE. 

self-existence  or  distinct  substance.  When  it  is 
applied  to  the  Son,  it  signifies  face  or  presence. 
These  instances,  therefore,  afford  no  argument  for  the 
term  persons;  and  as  many  view  the  expression,  when 
applied  to  one  God,  as  a  contradiction,  it  is  preferable 
to  adhere  as  closely  as  possible  to  the  language  of 
divine  inspiration  in  representing  a  doctrine  so  myste- 
rious. 

The  greatest  care  needs  to  be  used  in  the  choice 
of  terms  to  express  our  ideas  of  the  divine  Nature. 
If  we  have  clear  ideas  of  any  truth,  we  can  clearly 
communicate  them.  But  when  we  have  confused 
ideas  of  a  doctrine,  or  no  ideas  at  all,  it  is  in  vain  to 
attempt  to  supply  the  deficiency  by  any  selection  of 
words.  From  the  inspired  writings  we  have  a  dis- 
tinct idea  that  there  is  a  plurality,  a  trinity  in  the 
divine  nature.  But  when  we  pursue  our  inquiries 
respecting  the  mode  of  this  three-fold  substance,  ideas 
fail  and  language  also  fails. 

The  words  plurality  and  Trinity  are  not  found  in 
the  sacred  writings.  But  as  the  divine  name  is 
repeatedly  used  in  the  plural  number;  as  the  appella- 
tions, the  Father,  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost  are 
given  to  the  divine  Being,  it  is  conceived  there  is  just 
ground  for  the  use  of  these  terms. 

Some  have  attempted  to  illustrate  this  doctrine  by 
comparing  it  with  the  union  of  the  human  body,  soul 
and  spirit;  and  likewise  by  comparing  it  with  the  three 
principal  faculties  of  the  human  mind.  These  com- 
parisons may  go  so  far,  perhaps,  as  to  shew  that  the 
doctrine  is  not  contradictory  or  absurd.  But  they  fall 
far  short  of  illustrating  the  doctrine.  The  human 
body,  soul  and  spirit  have  properties  peculiar  to  them- 
selves. What  is  predicated  of  one  cannot  be  predicated 
of  the  others.  Neither  do  these  three  constitute  one 
essence.  The  understanding,  will  and  affections  are 
simple  qualities  of  the  mind.  They  not  only  sustain 
different  offices  in  the  human  intellect,  but  they  are 
entirely  different.     Some  suppose  there  is  no  need  of 


PLURALITY    IN    THE    DIVINE    NATURE.  37 

admitting  any  distinction  in  the  divine  nature;  that 
he,  who  is  the  same  in  all  respects,  acts  in  dilferent 
offices.  But  the  divine  law  and  the  nature  of  the 
atonement  do  not  admit  this  illustration. 

It  is  in  vain  to  draw  comparisons  from  the  material, 
or  from  the  intelligent  world  for  the  explanation  of 
the  doctrine  of  divine  plurality.  There  may  be  some 
points  of  contact  in  the  comparison;  but  there  is  no 
parallellism  between  the  creature  and  the  Creator. 
"Who  in  the  Heaven  can  be  compared  unto  the  Lord; 
who  among  the  sons  of  the  mighty  can  be  likened  unto 
the  Lord?"* 

*  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  the  same  name  of  plural  number,  which  is  ap- 
plied to  God,  (a^nSx)  is  also  applied  to  Dagon,  the  god  of  the  Philistines; 
to  Ashtoreth,  the  goddess  of  the  Zidonians;  and  to  Moses.  Another  plural 
name  of  God  (qijiin)  is  also  applied  to  individual  men.  The  names  of 
some  individual  things  are  expressed  by  nouns  of  the  plural  number.  But  does 
this  prove  that  there  is  either  no  plurality  in  the  divine  Being,  or  that  there  is 
a  plurality  in  human  nature,  or  in  particular  things?  This  conclusion  would  be 
hardly  logical.  The  first  name  in  the  Bible  given  to  God  is  a  noun  of  plural 
number.  The  same  name  is  frequently  given  to  him  in  the  Old  Testament. 
The  idolatrous  nations,  which  lived  not  very  remote  from  the  Jews,  were  un- 
doubtedly acquainted  with  the  name  of  the  God  they  worshipped.  They  applied 
the  same  plural  name  to  individuals  of  their  deities;  and  when  they  applied  other 
names,  they  sometimes  applied  them  in  the  plural  number.  It  was  natural  for 
them  to  give  a  name  to  their  deities  as  honorable  as  that,  which  the  Hebrews 
gave  to  their  God.  If  there  was  an  appropriate  significancy  in  the  plural  num- 
ber, when  applied  to  the  true  God,  it  is  not  incredible  that  heathen  should  use 
the  same  number  in  giving  names  to  their  idols,  designing  to  equalize  them  with 
him;  as  far  as  names  could  do  it.  Nor  is  it  a  striking  peculiarity  of  the  Hebrew 
language,  that  a  name  of  masculine  termination  should  be  given  to  a  goddess. 
For  the  Latin  Deus  and  the  Greek  fliof,  are  used  to  signify  both  god  and  god- 
dess.  Besides,  there  were  many  idols  of  the  same  name,  which  justifies  the  use 
of  the  plural  number. 

The  divine  name  of  plural  number  was  given  t«  Moses.  I  have  made  thee  a 
God,  a-rha,  to  Pharaoh.  Ex.  7:1.  Sn,  the  root  of  this  word,  signifies,  to 
interpose,  intervene,  mediate,  CQVie  or  be  between,  for  protection,  prevention, 
&c.  (Parkh.  Lex.)  There  was  great  pertinence  in  giving  a  name,  from  this  root, 
to  Moses;  because  he  interposed,  intervened,  mediated  between  the  kmg  ot 
Egypt  and  God.  As  God  in  plurality  interposed  in  behalf  of  fallen  man  for 
protection  mid  prevention;  as  the  name  of  God,  from  this  r«ot,  was  used  fre- 
quently, if  not  generally,  in  the  plural  number,  there  was  a  propriety  m  applying 
to  Moses  this  name  in  the  same  number.  The  name  was  not  designed  to  be  sig- 
nificant of  the  nature  of  the  Hebrew  leader,  but  to  express  his  office  and -work. 
A  plural  name  of  God  is  also  given  to  Joseph  by  his  brethren.  But  reasons 
similar  to  the  foregoing  will  justify  its  application.  This  style  is  not  peculiar  to 
the  Hebrew  language.  In  the  English  tongue  a  similar  dialect  is  used.  Some  ot 
the  names  of  God  are  applied  to  men;  and  the  royal  style  is  of  plural  number. 

Names  of  plural  number,  applied  to  individual  things,  are  not  peculiar  to  the 
Hebrew  language;  nor  do  they  invalithite  the  argument  drawn  hom  the  plurality 
of  the  divine  name.  The  same  usage  is  known  in  our  own  language,  /^^cause 
some  of  our  plural  names  are  applied  to  singular  things,  il  does  not  tollow  that 
there  is  not  a  peculiar  significancy  in  the  royal  style.     Because  some  Hebrew 

names  of  plural  number  are  applied  to  iniiividuid  things,  it  does  not  follow  that 


38  PLURALITY    IN    THE    DIVINE    NATURE. 

there  is  not  a  peculiar  significancy  in  the  plural  name  of  God.  Besides,  those 
Hebrew  plurals,  applied  to  singulars,  which  have  been  offered  to  invalidate  the 
argument  of  divine  plurality,  are  of  such  a  complex  nature,  or  of  such  con- 
nexion, that  they  appear  to  contain  or  imply  a  plurality. 

In  Ps.  45:6, 7,  the  plural  name  of  fiod  is  applied  to  the  Son  and  to  the  Father. 
This,  instead  of  proving  that  there  is  a  plurality  in  each,  serves  to  confirm  the 
opinion  that  there  is  such  a  union  between  them,  that  the  name  of  one  may  be 
applied  to  the  other;  and  the  plural  name,  embracing  the  Trinity,  may  be 
applied  to  the  Father,  or  the  Son,  or  the  Holy  Spirit;  for  one  implies  the  other. 

"The  ancient  idolaters  in  general  called  the  material  heavens,  or  their  rep- 
resentatives D'n'?^'  ■^nd  although  the  heavens  are  eminently  distinguished 
into  fire,  light,  and  spirit,  and  many  actions  or  operations  are  immediately  per- 
formed by  one  or  two  of  these,  yet,  as  the  whole  celestial  fluid  acts  jointly,  or  all 
its  three  conditions  concur  in  every  eftect;  hence  it  is  that  the  ancient  heathen 
called  not  only  the  whole  heavens,  but  any  one  of  its  three  conditions,  denoted 
by  a  name  expressive  of  some  eminent  operation  it  performs,  3iriS><.  Foi" 
they  meant  not  to  deny  the  joint  action  of  the  whole  material  Trinity,  but  to 
give  it  the  glory  of  that  particular  attribute."    Parkh.  Lex.  p.'20. 

nSx  signifies  "a  denouncing  of  a  curse,  a  curse  denounced  either  upon 
one's  self  or  others,  or  both,  so  an  oath  taken  or  given."  (Parkh.  Lex.  p.  18.) 
The  plural  of  this  word,  applied  to  God,  easily  suggests  the  idea  of  the  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  entering  into  an  oath,  or  covenant  between  themselves,  and 
denouncing  a  curse  on  those,  who  continue  not  in  all  things  which  are  written  in 
the  book  of  the  law  to  do  them.  Besides,  the  Son  himself  was  made  a  curse. 
In  this  view,  the  plural  noun,  Q^nVN  has  peculiar  significance  and  perti- 
nence. 


ON    THE     FATHER. 


When  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  discussed,  httle  is 
said  distinctly  respecting  the  Father.  The  cause  of 
this  neglect  probably  is,  that  all  parties  on  this  sub- 
ject acknowledge  that  God  is  Father;  and  that  the 
Father  is  God;  and  discussions  respecting  the  nature 
of  the  Son  imply  the  existence  of  the  Father.  But 
in  taking  a  general  view  of  the  divine  nature,  as  it  is 
revealed,  it  is  necessary  to  notice  every  character 
and  office  attached  to  it.  The  sacred  scriptures  rep- 
resent the  Father  as  having  a  distinct  name,  a  distinct 
character,  a  distinct  office.  There  is  no  reason  that 
this  part  of  the  subject  should  be  omitted. 

God  claims  the  relationship  of  Father  to  the  human 
race.  He  is  the  Author  of  their  beings;  and  on  this 
gruond  it  is  proper  to  call  him  their  Father.  The  pro- 
phet Malachi  saith,  "A  son  honoreth  his  father,  and  a 
servant  his  master;  if  then  I  be  «  Father,  where  is  mine 
honor,  saith  the  Lord  of  hosts."  Again  he  inquires, 
"Have  we  not  all  one  Father?  hath  not  one  God 
created  us?"  Christ  taught  his  disciples,  saying,  "Be 
ye  perfect,  even  as  your  Father,  which  is  in  heaven, 
is  perfect."  Again  he  said,  "Pray  to  thy  Father, 
which  is  in  secret;  and  thy  Father  which  sccth  in 
secret  shall  reward  thee  openly."  The  apostle  Paul 
saith,  "To  us  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father." 
The  phrase,  "God  the  Father,"  is  frequently  used  in 
the  New  Testament.  When  the  title,  Father,  is 
applied    to  God,  importing    his    relationship  to    the 


40  ON    THE   FATHER. 

human  race,  it  does  not  designate  distinction  in  the 
divine  nature.  Its  import  is,  God  in  plurahty.  When 
Christ  teaches  us  to  pray,  "Our  Father,  who  art  in 
heaven,"  he  designs  that  we  should  address  the  one 
only  living  and  true  God  without  the  distinction  of 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit. 

God  is  in  a  more  special  manner,  the  Father  of 
believers.  He  claims  a  nearer  and  more  endearing 
relationship  to  them.  He  calls  them  children;  he  calls 
them  sons.  "As  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
they  are  the  sons  of  God.  Behold  what  manner  of 
love  the  Father  hath  bestowed  upon  us  that  we 
should  be  called  the  sons  of  God.  Beloved,  now  are 
we  the  sons  of  God.  Ye  have  received  the  spirit  of 
adoption,  whereby  we  cry,  Abba,  Father.  The 
union  and  affection,  which  subsist  between  them,  are 
a  just  ground  for  giving  them  the  appropriate  names 
Father  and  sons.  When  God  takes  to  himself  the 
name  Father  in  relation  to  the  human  race,  or  to 
believers,  it  is  not  designed  to  mark  a  distinction  in 
his  nature;  but  it  conveys  the  idea  of  divine  nature 
generally.  The  terms  Father  and  God  are  frequently 
used  as  synonymous. 

In  all  those  divine  works,  which  do  not  involve  the 
work  of  redemption,  God  in  plurality  is  brought  to 
view.  But  when  the  work  of  redemption  is  exhib- 
ited, then  the  Trinity  distinctly  appears.  When  one 
of  the  sacred  Three  is  exhibited,  performing  a  certain 
part  in  the  work  of  salvation,  he  takes  the  name  of 
Father,  not  from  the  relationship,  which  he  bears 
toward  the  human  family;  but  from  the  relationship, 
which  he  bears  toward  the  Son.  In  the  divine 
nature  and  in  the  divine  works  there  is  perfect  order. 
In  divine  offices  there  is  priority  and  posteriority. 
By  unanimous  consent  one  of  the  Trinity  holds  the 
first  place.  By  unanimous  consent  he  holds  authority 
over  the  Son,  and  over  the  Spirit.  As  a  father  is  the 
head  of  his  family,  and  holds  the  reins  of  authority, 
there  appears  to  be  propriety  in  calling  Him  Father, 


ON    THE    FATHER.  41 

who  hokls  the  firs4;  ofrice  in  the  work  of  redemption. 
Tlie  names  of  each  of  the  Trinity  are  not  of  human 
invention.  They  are  revealed.  It  may  reasonably 
be  expected  that  God  would  reveal  himself  by  name 
or  names  of  appropriate  signification;  that  he  would 
adopt  language,  which  was  calculated  to  convey  some 
correct  ideas  of  himself.  When  one  of  the  Trinity 
calls  himself  Father,  it  is  presumable  that  there  is 
some  analogy  between  himself  and  a  human  father. 
It  is  not  supposable  that  any  figurative  language,  or 
any  representation  taken  from  creatures  can  convey 
an  adequate  idea  of  the  divine  nature.  There  is  no 
language,  there  is  no  representation,  which  can  bring 
the  infinitude  of  the  Deity  within  the  limits  of  finite 
understanding.  But  language  and  similitudes  drawn 
from  things,  with  which  we  are  acquainted,  help  us  to 
form  some  conception  of  the  nature,  character  and 
offices,  of  the  divine  Being. 

If  one  of  the  Trinity  be  called  Father,  in  relation 
to  Christ,  it  does  not  follow  that  he  is  his  Father  in 
the  same  sense,  in  which  a  man  is  father  of  his  son. 
The  scriptures  abound  with  pertinent  and  forcible 
figures.  If  there  be  a  striking  analogy  between  the 
two  relationships,  there  is  propriety  in  calling  him 
Father.  It  has  been  observed  that  the  authority, 
which  he  holds  over  Jesus  Christ,  in  the  work  of 
redemption,  renders  it  proper  that  he  should  be  called 
Father.  If  the  manner  of  Christ's  coming  into  the 
Avorld;  his  introduction  into  office;  his  resurrection  from 
the  dead  be  reasons,  for  which  he  is  called  Son,  the 
same  reasons  are  valid  for  calling  him  Father,  who 
sent  him  into  the  world,  introduced  him  into  office, 
and  raised  him  from  the  dead.  Between  a  father  and 
son  there  is  similarity  of  nature  and  nearness  of  rela- 
tionship. Christ  is  of  the  same  nature  with  him,  who 
sent  him.  He  perfectly  harmonizes  with  him  in  all 
his  designs,  and  in  all  his  works.  "What  things  soever 
he  doth,  (i.  e.  the  Father)  these  also  doeth  the  Son 
likewise."  Christ  cnJlsGod  his  Fatlier.  He  expresses 
6 


42  ON    THE    FATHER. 

their  union  in  the  strongest  language.  "I  and  my 
Father  are  one.  Believe  me  that  I  am  in  the  Fatherc 
and  the  Father  in  me."  Christ  is  said  to  be  in  the 
bosom  of"  the  Father.  These  expressions  designate 
the  intimate  union,  which  subsists  between  them;  and 
shew  the  propriety  in  calling  them  by  names,  which 
express  the  nearest  relationship. 

A  father  feels  a  tender  affection  for  his  son.  God 
expresses  his  great  love  for  Christ.  At  his  baptism 
he  declared,  "This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am 
well  pleased.  The  Father  loveth  the  Son."  God's 
love  for  the  world  is  argued  from  his  sending  his  only 
begotten  Son  into  the  world.  If  this  be  an  expres- 
sion of  great  love  to  the  world,  it  follovvs  that  he 
exercised  great  love  toward  his  Son.  The  great  love 
which  God  had  for  Christ  is  another  reason  for 
calhng  himself  his  Father. 

"A  father  frequently  makes  an  only  son  heir  of  all 
he  possesses.  He,  who  sent  Christ  into  the  world 
hath  appointed  him  heir  of  all  things.  He  hath  given 
him  all  authority.  He  hath  given  him  dominion  over 
all  things  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  This  is  an  addi- 
tional reason  foi*  calling  him  the  Father  of  Jesus  Christ. 
By  way  of  emphasis  Christ  is  called  the  Son.  By  the 
same  emphatical  distinction  he  is  called   the  Father. 

It  is  impossible  for  finite  minds  to  understand  the 
union  and  the  relationship,  which  subsists  in  the  divine 
plurality.  The  scriptures,  by  a  figure  of  speech,  call 
Christ  Son,  and  by  the  same  figurative  mode  of 
expression  they  call  him,  who  sent  him.  Father. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  quote  texts  of  scripture  and 
use  arguments  to  prove  the  divinity  of  the  Father. 
For  those,  who  believe  there  is  a  God,  believe  that 
the  Father  is  God.  Besides,  the  scriptures  frequently 
use  the  terms,  Father  and  God,  as  synonymous. 

In  the  covenant  of  redemption,  ratified  by  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  it  is  stipulated,  that  the  Son,  in 
consideration  for  his  sacrifice  ana  mediation,  "shall  see 
of  the  travail  of  his  soul  and  shall  be  satisfied."    The 


ON    THE    FATHER.  43 

Father  promised  to  him  saying,  "I  will  divide  him  a 
portion  with  the  great;  and  he  shall  divide  the  spoil 
with  the  strong."  The  Father  promised  to  give  him 
the  heathen,  (i.  e.  the  nations)  for  his  inheritance,  and 
the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth  for  his  possession; 
that  he  shall  have  dominion  from  sea  to  sea,  and 
from  the  river  unto  the  ends  of  the  earth. 

From  Christ's  own  words  it  appears  that  the  Father 
has  given  him  a  portion  of  the  human  race.  In  his 
prayer  to  the  Father  he  saith,  ''I  pray  not  for  the 
world,  but  for  them,  which  thou  hast  given  me.  Holy 
Father,  keep  through  thine  own  name,  those,  whom 
thou  hast  given  me.  Those,  that  thou  gavest  me  1  have 
kept.  Father,  I  will  that  they  also,  whom  thou  hast 
given  me  be  with  mc,  ivhere  1  am.^^ 

It  belonged  to  the  office  of  the  Father  to  send  the 
Son  into  the  world.  "God  so  loved  the  world  that 
he  sent  his  only  begotten  Son  into  the  world."  In  this 
was  manifested  the  love  of  God  toward  us,  because 
that  God  sent  his  only  begotten  Son  into  the  world, 
that  we  might  live  through  him.  Herein  is  love,  not 
that  we  loved  God,  but  that  he  loved  us,  and  sent  his 
Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for  our  sins. 

The  sending  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  attributed  to  the 
Father.  "How  much  more  shall  your  heavenly  Father 
give  the  Holy  Spirit  to  them  that  ask  him.  The 
Comforter,  which  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Father 
will  send  in  my  name,  he  siiall  teach  you  all  things. 
When  the  Comforter  is  come,  whom  I  will  send  unto 
you  Irom  the  Father,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth,  which 
proceedeth  from  the  Father.  Because  ye  are  sons, 
'  God  hath  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  your 
hearts,  crying,  Abba,  Father." 

The  Father  is  the  object  of  Christ's  intercession. 
"He  made  intercession  for  the  transgiessors."  Who 
maketh  intercession  for  us.  We  have  an  advocate 
with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ,  the  righteous.  Christ 
is  not  entered  into  the  holy  places  made  with  hand;^, 
which  are  the  figures  of  the  true,  but  into   heaven 


44  ON  THE  FATHER. 

itself,  now  to  appear  in  the  presence  of  God  for  us." 
The  intercessions  of  Christ  are  prevalent  with  the 
Father.  "Jesus  lifted  up  his  eyes  and  said,  Father,  I 
thank  thee  that  thou  hast  heard  me.  And  I  knew 
that  thou  hearest  me  always."  Christ  intercedeth 
for  those  only,  who  are  given  him  or  are  sanctified  by 
the  Spirit;  and  the  Father  is  always  ready  to  hear 
intercession  for  such. 

Since  the  apostasy,  the  Father  has  holden 
intercourse  with  man,  and  man  with  the  Father 
through  the  medium  of  the  Son.  When  the  Father 
reveals  his  will  to  man;  when  he  confers  his  blessings, 
either  temporal  or  spiritual,  it  is  by  or  through  the 
Son.  When  prayers  are  offered  to  our  heavenly 
Father,  they  are  offered  in  the  name,  or  through  the 
medium  of  the  Son;  and  they  become  prevalent  only 
by  his  intercession. 

It  was  the  office  of  the  Father  to  send  the  Son 
into  the  world,  to  make  a  propitiation  for  sin;  and  to 
reconcile  the  world  unto  himself.  He  is  well  pleased 
with  the  righteousness  of  his  Son;  and  he  is  well 
pleased  with  those,  who  are  the  objects  of  his  inter- 
cessions. 

It  was  the  office  of  the  Father  to  give  all  authority 
to  the  Son  in  his  mediatorial  capacity.  When  Christ 
has  fulfilled  the  duties  of  his  office  as  Mediator  and 
Redeemer,  and  has  judged  the  world,  then  will  he 
give  up  the  kingdom  to  God  the  Father.  Then  will 
the  Father  receive  the  authority  which  he  had  given 
to  the  Son;  and  God,  without  those  distinctions,  which 
were  manifested  during  the  economy  of  redemption, 
will  be  all  in  all. 

The  priority  of  the  Fathers  office  in  the  work  of 
redemption  is  no  proof  of  his  superior  nature,  or  that 
he  is  entitled  to  higher  veneration  than  the  Son  or 
Spirit.  In  every  work  there  is  need  of  methodical 
arrangement.  In  the  great  and  complex  work  of 
redemption  there  is  the  greatest  need  of   method. 


ON    THE    FATHER.  45 

Where  infinite  wisdom  operates  there  is  order.  If 
the  Trinity  hold  respective  offices  in  order,  there  is 
first,  second,  and  third  office.  There  is  priority  and 
posteriority.  The  dignity  of  their  offices  is  not 
affected  by  their  number.  To  human  view,  a  sacrifice 
for  sin  is  as  important  as  the  acceptance  of  the  sac- 
rifice; and  qualifications  to  receive  the  benefit  of  it 
are  as  necessary  as  the  sacrifice  itself  Thus, 
Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  hold  offices  equally  essential 
to  the  work  of  redemption,  and  they  claim  equal  love 
and  veneration. 


IN  WHAT  SENSE   CHRIST  IS  THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


Psalm  2:7.  Thou  art  my  Son.  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
Author  of  our  holy  rehgion.  The  communications, 
which  were  made  to  man  after  the  apostasy,  were 
made  by  him.  By  his  authority  holy  men  of  God 
were  inspired  by  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  communicated 
the  divine  will.  By  him  the  covenant  of  grace  was 
given  to  degenerate  man;  and  through  his  mediation, 
every  favor  is  bestowed  upon  this  fallen  world. 
When  fulness  of  time  was  come  he  appeared  on  earth 
in  the  form  of  human  nature.  He  made  more  clear 
and  copious  displays  of  the  divine  will,  than  had  been 
made  before.  He  taught  the  way  which  led  to 
heaven.  He  was  embraced  in  the  first  promise  of 
mercy  to  fallen  humanity.  He  was  the  principal 
object  of  ancient  prophecy.  He  was  the  substance, 
which  was  represented  by  the  types  in  the  Hebrew 
ritual.  He  was  the  antitype  of  the  sacrifices,  which 
were  offered  upon  the  Jewish  altar.  He  is  the  main 
scope  of  the  gospel.  He  is  the  foundation  of  salva- 
tion.    He  is  the  chief  corner  stone  of  the  church. 

As  Jesus  Christ  holds  so  important  a  place  in  the 
scheme  of  redemption,  it  is  necessary  to  form  correct 
ideas  of  his  nature,  character  and  office.  As  he  is 
the  foundation  of  Christianity,  the  sentiments  we  form 
of  him,  will  affect  our  whole  creed  respecting  the 
method  of  salvation.  It  cannot  be  expected  that  the 
superstructure  will  be  better  than  the  basis.     If  we 


IN    WHAT   SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE   SON    OP    GOD.        47 

begin  with  error,  the  whole  fabric  will  be  erroneous. 
View  the  Christian  world,  and  it  will  be  found  that 
the  sentiments  they  form  of  Christ  give  a  complexion 
to  their  whole  creed  respecting  Christianity.  The 
greatest  care  ought,  therefore,  to  be  used  in  forming 
an  opinion  on  this  fundamental  article  of  the  Christian 
faith.  It  concerns  us  to  decide  whether  Jesus  Christ 
is  simply  human;  whether  he  is  a  composition  of 
human  and  super-angelic  nature,  or  whether  he  is 
composed  of  humanity  and  Divinity.  It  is  important 
to  decide  whether  Christ  exhibited  characteristic 
marks  of  divine  nature;  and  whether  he  sustains  the 
office  of  Mediator,  Redeemer  and  Savior.  I'he  im- 
portance of  the  subject  demands  a  faithful  investiga- 
tion. 

When  Christ  appeared  in  the  world,  it  was  a  prom- 
inent inquiry  among  the  Jews  whether  he  was  the 
Son  of  God.  The  inquiries  whether  he  was  the 
Christ,  or  whether  he  was  the  Son  of  God  were  of 
the  same  import.  They  expected  that  when  the 
promised  Messiah  appeared,  he  would  appear  in  the 
character  of  God's  Son.  In  the  Old  Testament  God 
acknowledges  him  to  be  his  Son.  By  his  prophet  he 
said,  "Thou  art  my  Son."  Jewish  authors  admit  that 
the  term  Son  in  the  2d  Psalm  is  applied  to  Christ. 
To  put  the  question  beyond  dispute  the  apostle  Paul 
quotes  this  short  passage,  and  applies  it  to  Christ. 
When  Je^^us  claimed  the  title,  Son  of  God,  and  the 
title,  Christ,  the  Jews  considered  him  claiming  the 
same  prerogatives.  At  one  time  they  accused  him  of 
calling  himself  Christ.  At  another  time  they  accused 
him  of  calling  himself  the  Son  of  God;  and  they 
viewed  the  accusations  of  the  same  import. 

Christ  once  inquired  of  his  disciples  what  was  the 
opinion  of  people  respecting  himself  After  they 
had  named  several  opinions,  which  were  entertained 
of  him,  he  inquired  of  them  saying,  "Whom  say  ye, 
that  I  am.'"'  Peter,  who  was  always  ready  to  give 
an  answer,  said,  "Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 


48         IN    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OF    GOD. 

living  God.-'  Jesus  replied,  "Blessed  art  thou  Simon 
Barjona;  for  flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  it  unto 
thee;  but  my  Father,  which  is  in  heaven."  This 
reply  proved  that  Peter  had  formed  right  ideas  of 
him;  and  gave  him  an  appropriate  name.  Jesus 
Christ  was  predicted  by  the  name,  Son.  When  he 
came  into  the  world  he  maintained  that  he  was  the 
Son  of  God.  When  he  was  on  trial  before  the  council, 
the  high  Priest  adjured  him  by  the  living  God,  that 
he  should  declare  whether  he  was  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  God.  When  the  Centurion  saw  the  miracles  at 
his  crucifixion,  he  exclaimed,  "Surely  this  was  the  Son 
of  God."  The  apostles  preached  the  same  doctrine. 
After  Saul  was  converted  to  the  Christian  faith,  he 
"straightway  preached  Christ  in  the  synagogues,  that 
he  is  the  Son  of  God."  Evil  spirits  acknowledged 
the  same  sentiment;  and  gave  him  the  same  title. 
The  relationship  of  Christ  to  the  Father  expressed 
by  the  term  Son  was  acknowledged  by  himself;  by 
his  apostles;  and  by  primitive  Christians. 

Soon  after  Christ  left  the  world,  various  opinions 
arose  respecting  him.  Some  believed  that  he  was 
wholly  divine;  that  he  assumed  only  the  appearance  oi 
humanity.  Some  held  that  a  super-angelic  nature 
was  united  with  his  human  nature.  Others  maintained 
that  he  was  a  mere  man,  furnished  with  extraordinary 
communications.  This  variety  of  sentiment  respecting 
Jesus  Christ  early  disturbed  and  divided  the  Christian 
Church.  The  same  distinctions,  with  their  various 
modifications,  have  perpetuated  divisions  in  the  Chris- 
tian world. 

The  phrase,  Son  of  God,  is  often  applied  in  the 
scriptures  to  Jesus  Christ.  He  frequently  claims  this 
dignity.  The  Father  often  calls  him  his  Son;  his 
own  Son;  his  dearly  beloved  Son.  Scripture  names 
are  remarkable  for  their  pertinence;  and  there  is  no 
doubt  that  a  peculiar  and  appropriate  sense  is  to  be 
attached  to  this  title.  It  is  important  to  inquire  in 
what  sense  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God. 


IN    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OF    GOD.        49 

This  appellation  was  given  to  individuals  of  the 
human  race.  Adam  was  called  the  son  of  God. 
When  God  sent  Moses  to  Pharaoh,  requiring  him  to 
let  Israel  go,  he  commanded  him  to  say  unto  Pharaoh, 
"Thus  saith  the  Loid,  Israel  is  my  son.  When  God 
forbade  David  to  build  an  house  for  his  name,  he 
declared  that  Solomon  should  build  him  an  house;  and 
"I  will  be  his  Father  and  he  shall  be  my  Son;  and  I 
will  establish  his  kingdom."  Those,  who  are  born  of 
the  Spirit  and  have  become  members  of  Christ's 
kingdom,  are  frequently  called  sons  of  God.  "As  many 
as  are  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  they  are  the  sons  of 
God.  As  many  as  received  him,  to  them  gave  he 
power  to  become  the  sons  of  God."  People  are  chil- 
dren of  God  in  different  senses,  and  in  different  respects. 
All  are  his  children  in  this  general  sense,  that  he  is 
the  Author  of  their  existence;  and  in  this  sense  all 
may  call  him  Father.  But  those,  who  are  renewed 
in  the  temper  of  their  mmds,  and  are  adopted  into  his 
family,  are,  in  a  more  peculiar  sense,  his  children,  or 
his  sons;  and  in  a  more  peculiar  sense  God  is  their 
Father. 

Christ  is  not  only  Son  of  God,  but  by  way  of  distinc- 
tion and  eminence,  he  is  the  Son  of  God.  If  those, 
who  are  born  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  who  bear  the  divine 
moral  likeness,  and  have  become  members  of  God's 
family  by  adoption,  are  emphatically  sons  of  God;  for 
greater  reasons,  and  in  a  higher  sense  is  Jesus  Christ 
the  Son  of  God. 

Some  are  of  opinion  that  the  sonship  of  Christ  orig- 
inated from  his  miraculous  conception.  To  Mary  the 
angel  said,  "The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon  thee; 
and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow  thee; 
therefore  also  that  holy  thing,  wljich  shall  be  born  of 
thee,  shall  be  called  the  Son'of  God."  It  is  not  doubt- 
ed that  this  is  one  reason,  for  which  he  was  called  by 
this  name.  But  it  is  not  the  only,  nor  the  principal 
reason  for  giving  him  this  appellation.  Christ  was 
called  a  Son  Ions:  before  his  incarnation.  The  Psalmist 
7 


50         IN   WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OF    GOB. 

speaking  the  language  of  the  Father  to  Christ,  saith, 
"Thou  art  my  Son."  The  love  ot  God  is  represented 
in  the  highest  degree  because  he  sent  his  Son  into  the 
world.  The  love  of  God  is  grounded  on  his  not  sparing 
his  own,  his  dearlj  beloved  Sonj  but  giving  him  up 
freely  for  the  sins  of  the  world.  If  God  had  not  had 
a  Son  before  the  advent  of  the  Messiah,  he  could  not 
have  sent  his  Son.  Therefore  the  peculiar  manner  of 
his  introduction  into  the  world  did  not  constitute  his 
near  relationship  to  the  Father. 

Christ  is  not  a  literal  Son  of  the  Father.  Because 
Christ  is  repeatedly  called  Son  of  God,  it  does  not 
follow  that  this  phrase  is  to  be  understood  according 
to  its  literal,  or  natural  meaning.  If  it  should  be  ad- 
mitted as  an  established  rule  for  the  interpretation 
of  the  scriptures  that  words  are  always  to  be  under- 
stood according  to  their  natural  meaning,  and  according 
to  their  general  acceptation,  there  would  be  found  some- 
thing more  th?iu'mystery  in  the  Bible.  If  the  terms  Son  of 
God  prove  that  Jesus  Christ  is  literally  and  properly  the 
Son  of  the  most  High,  then  the  terms  Lamb  of  God 
would  prove  that  Christ  was  literally  and  properly  a.  lamb; 
and  as  he  was  of  God,  it  would  prove  that  God  possess- 
ed the  same  nature.  The  scriptures  say,  "it  repented  the 
Lord  that  he  had  made  man  on  the  earth;  The  Lord 
repented  of  the  evil,  which  he  thought  to  do  unto  his 
people;  God  repented  of  the  evil  that  he  had  said 
that  he  would  do  unto  them  and  he  did  it  not."  If 
these  passages  are  to  be  understood  according  to  the 
rule  of  literal  interpretation,  or  according  to  the  com- 
mon acceptation  of  words,  then  God  is  changeable  like 
man;  and  feels  the  painful  emotions  of  humanity.  God 
is  represented  in  the  scriptures  as  hearing,  seeing, 
smelling.  If  these  terms  are  to  be  explained  by  the 
rule  just  mentioned,  then  the  divine  Spirit  is  invested 
with  a  body;  and  possesses  corporeal  organs.  Such 
interpretations  prove  that  the  rule  is  not  correct;  and 
it  proves  also  that  Christ  is  not  literally  the  Son  of 
God,  merely  because  he  is  called  by  this  name. 


IN    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OF    GOD.         51 

Christ  is  not  the  Son  of  God  by  derivation.  Crea- 
tion and  derivation  are  words  of  diirerent  import;  and 
they  require  different  acts  of  power.  Creation  is  the 
production  of  something  out  of  nothing.  Derivation 
is  the  production  of  something  from  something aheady 
existing.  Matter  was  created.  The  human  body 
was  derived  from  this  substance.  The  human  race 
have  derived  their  nature  uhimately  from  the  parents 
of  all  hving.  All  the  properties  of  their  natures  are 
similar  to  those  of  their  progenitors.  If  their  parents 
had  a  beginning  of  existence,  if  they  were  dependent 
and  were  lim-ted  in  all  their  faculties,  their  descend- 
ants are  exactly  like  them  in  all  these  particulars. 
The  nature  they  derived  is  exactly  similar  to  that, 
from  which  they  derived  it.  A  stream  is  of  the  same 
nature  as  its  fountain.  Every  production  is  of  the 
same  nature,  i.  e.  possesses  the  same  essential  proper- 
ties, as  those  from  which  they  are  produced.  In  this 
manner  derivation  applies  to  almost  every  thing,  which 
falls  under  our  notice. 

If  Christ  derived  his  nature  from  the  Father,  he 
possesses  the  same  kind  of  natui'e,  the  same  essential 
properties,  which  the  Father  possesses.  If  the  Father 
be  eternal,  self  existent,  independent,  infinite  in  power, 
knowledge  and  wisdom',  the  derived  Son  must  also  be 
eternal,  self-existent,  independent,  infinite  in  power, 
knowledge  and  wisdom.  This  derived  Being  is  a 
distinct  and  separate  existence  from  the  Father.  As 
he  possesses  all  divine  attributes,  he  is  a  divine  Being. 
As  he  possesses  a  nature  separate  from,  and  inde- 
pendent of,  the  Father,  he  and  the  Father  are  two 
distinct  gods.  As  this  natural  conclusion  is  false,  it 
is  presumed  that  the  doctrine  of  divine  derivation  is 
not  true. 

It  is  in  vain  to  say,  all  divine  attributes  may  be 
derived  except  eternity  and  self-existence.  If  the 
Son,  by  derivation  bo  divine,  he  possesses  divine  attri- 
butes. If  he  possess  not  divine  attributes,  he  is  not 
divine.     Take  from  him  any  one  divine  property,  and 


52         IN    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OF    GOD. 

his  divinity  ceases.  Take  from  him  his  eternity  and 
self-existence,  and  it  is  harder  to  conceive  of  his 
divinity,  than  it  is  to  conceive  of  a  plurahty  in  the 
divine  nature.  It  is  hard  to  conceive  divine  attributes 
blended  in  the  same  nature  with  finite  properties.  It 
is  hard  to  conceive  almighty  power  in  a  dependent 
existence;  to  conceive  infinite  knowledge,  or  any  other 
quality  infinite  in  its  nature,  subsisting  in  a  nature, 
which  has  had  a  temporary  existence. 

When  creatures  receive  existence  by  derivation, 
they,  from  whom  they  are  derived,  communicate  a 
portion  of  their  own  substance.  They  sutTcr  a  dimi- 
nution of  themselves;  and  the  diminution  would 
continue,  if  they  did  not  receive  supplies,  from  external 
substance.  If"  Christ  derived  his  nature  from  the 
Father,  the  Father  communicated  a  part  of  his  own 
nature,  a  part  of  his  own  substance.  He  would  suffer 
a  privation  of  a  part  of  his  attributes,  a  part  of  his 
nature.  There  would  be  a  chasm  in  the  divine  Spirit, 
which  could  not  be  filled.  There  would  be  an  essen- 
tial defect  in  the  Father.  The  derived  extract  would 
be  dependent;  and  the  original  Source  of  being  would 
be  diminished.  Of  course,  the  Son  would  be  a 
dependent,  and  the  Father  a  finite  being. 

Divine  nature,  or  divine  attributes  are  not  commu- 
nicable. God  cannot  impart  one  quality  of  his  mind; 
nor  can  one  divine  quality  be  derived  from  him.  If  a 
human  or  an  angelic  spirit  be  produced,  it  is  the  effect 
of  divine  energy;  it  is  not  a  cotnmunication  of  divine 
qualities.  A  created  mind  is  similar,  in  some  respects, 
to  the  divine  Mind;  but,  in  degree,  it  bears  no 
comparison.  Holiness  in  the  human  heart  is  not  a 
derivation  of  divine  holiness;  but  it  is  the  effect  of 
divme  operation  upon  the  mind.  There  is  an  essential 
difference  between  originating  existence,  and  com- 
municating that  which  already  exists. 

The  divine  nature  is  eternal;  and  it  is  necessary  in 
its  existence.  As  it  had  no  cause  of  its  existence, 
there  is  no  cause,  which  can  destroy  its  existence.    As 


IN    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OF    GOD.         53 

it  is  impossible  that  it  should  not  exist,  it  is  impossible 
that  it  should  exist  otherwise  than  it  does.  If  its 
attributes  are  infinite,  it  is  impossible  it  should  exist 
with  a  diminution  or  relinquishment  of  any  of  its  attri- 
butes. It  is  not  derogatory  to  the  Deity,  to  be 
incapable  of  change;  to  be  incapable  of  imperfection. 
Admitting  these  principles,  it  is  impossible  that  God 
should  communicate  his  nature  or  his  attributes;  and 
it  is  equally  impossible  that  they  should  be  derived 
from  him.  Should  he  communicate  almighty  power, 
infinite  wisdom,  infinite  knowledge  and  independence, 
he  would  become  entirely  destitute  of  these  attributes. 
Or  rather,  a  transference  of  divine  attributes,  (suppos- 
ing it  possible)  would  not  destroy  them;  and  being  again 
united,  they  would  constitute  the  same  divine  Being; 
and  of  course  there  would  be  no  communication,  nor 
derivation.  If  it  be  supposed  that  Jesus  Christ 
derived  divine  attributes  from  the  Father  in  only  a 
limited  degree,  the  supposition  is  inconsistent.  In  the 
first  place,  divine  nature  is  incapable  of  division,  or 
separation,  or  of  communication  of  any  part  of  itself. 
In  the  second  place,  if  a  partial  communication  were 
made,  the  consequence  would  be  different  from  that, 
which  is  contemplated  by  the  supposition.  If  it  were 
possible  that  Christ  derived  a  finite  nature  and  finite 
attributes  from  the  Father,  he  would  not  be  divine. 
There  is  no  perceptible  difference  between  finite 
properties  and  the  properties  of  creatures.  Divine 
attributes  are  infinite;  or  they  are  in  the  highest  pos- 
sible degree.  Attributes  less  than  these  are  not  divine. 
Should  we  speak  of  divine,  dependent  power;  of  a 
divine,  finite  knowledge;  of  a  divine,  limited  presence; 
of  a  divine,  temporary  existence;  we  should  pervert, 
we  should  torture  language.  II'  we  had  ideas  on  this 
subject,  it  is  certain  that  such  a  combination,  such  a 
contrariety  of  words  would  not  convey  them. 

If  Christ  has  his  nature  by  derivation  from  the 
Father,  there  was  a  period  in  eternity,  in  which  lie 
had  not  existence.     It  was   owing  to  (he  will  of  the 


54         IN    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OP   GOD. 

Father  that  he  was  brought  into  being.  It  is,  of  course, 
owing  to  his  will  that  he  is  continued  in  existence. 
For  the  same  power,  which  produced  him,  can  return 
him  to  his  original  state.  He  is,  consequently,  entirely 
dependent  on  the  Father.  If  he  be  not  eternal;  if  he 
be  not  independent,  it  is  impossible  he  should  possess 
other  divine  attributes.  It  is  a  contradiction  to  say 
that  a  dependent  being  possesses  almighty  power.  It 
appears  to  be  impossible  that  a  being  of  only  a  tem- 
porary existence  should  possess  infinite  knowledge.  It 
is  impossible  there  should  be  infinite  wisdom  where 
knowledge  is  limited.  A  dependent  being  cannot  be, 
in  his  own  nature,  unchangeable.  Within  these 
limitations  it  is  impossible  that  a  beuig  should  be 
omnipresent,  and  be  capable  of  holding  the  reins  of 
universal  government.  After  the  closest  investigation 
of  the  nature  of  a  Son,  derived  from  the  Father,  (if 
such  a  thing  were  possible)  it  will  clearly  appear 
that  he  has  not  one  divine  attribute,  nor  the  least 
degree  of  divine  nature. 

It  is  in  vain  to  attempt  to  supply  the  innate  defi- 
ciency of  this  derived  Son,  by  constituting  him  God's 
agent,  and  by  anointing  him  with  the  Spirit  without 
measure;  and  by  investing  him  with  divine  fulness. 
If  Christ  was  only  appointed  or  constituted  Creator  of 
the  world;  if  the  Father  employed  him  as  an  instru- 
ment, through  whom  he  exercised  his  own  power, 
Christ  was  not  the  actual  Creator  of  the  world;  and 
the  glory  of  the  work  would  not  be  due  to  him.  If 
Christ  was  constituted  a  Prince;  and  he  was  a  Prince 
on  this  ground  only,  he  had  no  native  regal  dignity, 
nor  regal  authority.  He  acted  only  under  a  commis- 
sion; and  he,  who  granted  the  commission  could,  at 
any  time,  withdraw  it.  This  constituted  agent  would 
not  be  entitled  to  those  honors,  to  which  the  Father, 
who  constituted  him,  would  be  entitled.  There  would 
be  the  same  difference  in  their  claims,  as  there  would 
be  in  the  claims  of  an  actor  and  an  instrument.  If 
his  claims  to   princely  honors  rise   solely  from  God's 


IN    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OF    GOD.         55 

requiring:  that  they  should  honor  the  Son  even  as  they 
honor  the  Father,  it  is  difficult  to  understand  in  what 
sense  God  is  jealous  for  the  honor  of  his  name;  and 
that  he  will  not  give  his  glory  to  another.  If  Christ 
is  Judge,  only  because  he  is  constituted  to  that  office, 
then  he  does  not  possess  inherent  qualifications  for 
that  station,  he  is  merely  the  organ,  through  which 
the  Father  acts;  and  the  judgment  rendered  is  not 
propniy  that  of  the  Son,  but  that  of  the  Father.  If 
Christ  is  a  Savior,  merely  on  the  ground  of  a  consti- 
tuted character,  or  merely  because  he  was  appointed  to 
that  office,  he  would  be  only  an  ostensible  Savior;  the 
Father  would  be  the  real  Savior. 

If  the  Son  was  divine,  on  the  ground  of  his  deriva- 
tion from  the  Father,  there  would  be  no  need  of 
constituting  him  to  fill  divine  offices;  to  sustain  divine 
titles;  to  perform  divine  works.  There  would  be  no 
need  of  making  divine  communications  to  him  for  these 
purposes.  He  would  be  competent  in  his  own  nature 
to  fill  the  highest  offices;  to  claim  the  highest  honors; 
and  to  do  the  greatest  works.  If  extraordinary  divine 
communications  are  necessary  to  qualify  him  for  these 
things,  it  follows  that  he  is  not  divine. 

If  Christ's  superior  excellence  and  dignity  arises  not 
from  his  nature,  but  from  the  communications,  which 
the  Father  made  to  him,  it  is  difficult  to  draw  a  line 
of  distinction  between  him  and  the  prophets.  God 
endued  Moses  with  an  extraordinary  degree  of  power, 
by  which  he  exhibited  signs  and  wonders  before  Pha- 
raoh. But  who  actually  wrought  these  miracles? 
When  God  called  Moses  to  send  him  to  the  king  of 
Egypt;  and  he  hesitated  to  go,  God  said  unto  him,  "I 
will  stretch  out  my  hand  and  smite  Egypt  with  all  my 
wonders,  which  /  will  do  in  the  midst  thereof."  The 
power,  which  God  communicated  to  Moses  for  this 
purpose,  did  not  become  a  property  ol  Moses'  nature, 
any  more  than  it  became  the  property  of  the  rod, 
which  he  carried,  wherewith,  God  said,  he  should  do 
signs.      Moses  never  pretended  to   act   by   his   own 


56         IN    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OP    GOD. 

strength  in  his  exhibition  of  miracles,  excepting  at  the 
rock  in  Horeb;  Efnd  there  he  greatly  displeased  the 
Lord.  When  Elijah  restored  to  life  a  dead  child  of 
the  woman  with  whom  he  abode,  he  did  not  attempt 
the  undertaking  in  his  own  name,  nor  by  his  own  might. 
But  "he  cried  unto  the  Lord  and  said,  O  Lord  my 
God,  I  pray  thee,  let  this  child's  soul  come  into  him 
again.  And  the  Lord  heard  the  voice  of  Elijah,  and 
the  soul  of  the  child  came  into  him  again,  and  he 
revived."  Before  Elisha  raised  the  child  of  the 
Shunammite,  he  prayed  unto  the  Lord.  When  Peter 
was  about  to  give  health  to  a  sick  man,  he  said,  "Jesus 
Christ  maketh  thee  whole."  When  he  cured  a  lame 
man,  he  said,  "In  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Nazareth, 
rise  up  and  walk."  Before  he  raised  Tabitha  from 
the  dead,  he  kneeled  down  and  prayed.  These  were 
wonderful  works,  which  God  wrought  through  them. 
They  professed  to  act  undei'  authority;  and  they 
refused  divine  honors  when  they  were  offered  to  them. 
If  Christ  was  endued  with  divine  fulness  in  a  simi- 
lar manner,  it  might  be  expected  that  his  miracles 
would  be  attended  with  similar  circumstances.  When 
Christ  turned  water  into  wine,  he  addressed  no  supe- 
rior power.  When  he  healed  the  impotent  man  at 
the  pool,  he  simply  said,  "rise,  take  up  thy  bed,  and 
walk."  When  Jesus  gave  sight  to  a  blind  man,  he 
applied  clay  to  his  eyes;  and  sent  him  to  the  pool  of 
Siloam.  When  he  healed  a  man  of  the  leprosy  he 
said,  "I  will,  be  thou  clean."  When  he  cured  a  man 
of  the  palsy,  he  said,  "arise  and  take  up  thy  couch  and 
^o  unto  thine  house."  The  other  miraculous  cures, 
which  he  eifected,  he  accomplished  in  a  similar  manner. 
When  he  raised  the  widow's  son  of  Nain,  he  only  said, 
"Young  man,  I  say  unto  thee,  arise."  Before  he 
raised  Lazarus  from  the  grave  he  addressed  the 
Father.  But  for  what  purpose  did  he  address  him? 
Was  it  that  the  Father  would  put  forth  his  power 
through    him?      Christ    assigns    the    reason    himself; 


IN    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OF    GOD.         57 

"because  of  the  people  which  stand  by  I  said  it."  He 
then  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  "Lazarus,  come  forth." 

The  circumstances  attending  the  miracles,  which 
he  wrought,  did  not  give  the  least  appearance  that 
he  acted  by  power,  which  was  not  properly  his  own. 
When,  in  consequence  of  divine  works,  divine  honors 
were  addressed  to  him,  he  never  refused  them,  nor 
rebuked  his  worshippers.  When  people  heard  his 
instructions  they  ^^were  astonished  at  his  doctrine;  for 
he  taught  them  as  one  having  authority.''''  The  proph- 
ets never  pretended  that  they  were  the  authors  of 
divine  works;  and  they  never  claimed  divine  honors. 
If  the  Son  had  performed  divine  works,  only  by  the 
intervention  of  the  Father's  power  operating  through 
him,  he  would  be  no  more  entitled  to  divine  names 
and  divine  homage  than  the  prophets. 

It  has  been  supposed  that,  because  the  Father  hath 
given  all  things  into  the  hand  of  his  Son;  because  God 
hath  exalted  and  glorified  him;  because  God  hath  put 
all  things  under  his  feet  and  exalted  him  with  his  own 
right  hand  to  be  a  Prince  and  a  Savior;  because  God 
ordained  him  to  be  Judge  of  quick  and  dead;  because 
God  created  the  world  by  him  and  sent  him  into  the 
world,  Christ  is  inferior  to  the  Father;  that  he  is  of  a 
lower  nature  than  the  Father;  that  he  has  no  claims 
to  divinity  excepting  on  the  ground  of  a  constituted 
character,  or  by  the  reception  of  divine  fulness.  Tiiis 
sentiment  arises  from  not  making  a  distinction  between 
the  Son's  nature  and  the  offices  which  he  sustains. 

Had  there  been  no  apostasy;  had  no  projection  of 
a  method  of  salvation  been  made  and  put  in  operation, 
it  is  probable  the  divine  plurality  would  never  have 
been  manifested.  In  the  scheme  of  redemption  the 
distinctions  in  the  divine  nature  are  brought  into  view, 
and  into  distinct  operation.  In  this  great  work  there 
is  perfect  arrangement;  there  is  perfect  order.  In 
respect  to  office  there  is  priority  and  posteriority. 
In  respect  to  authority  and  works  there  is  subordina- 
tion. The  Father  sends  the  Son;  the  Son  sends  the 
8 


58        IN   WHM    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OP   GOD. 

Holy  Spirit.  It  is  the  office  of  the  Father  to  send. 
The  offices  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  require 
that  they  should  be  sent.  They  fill  as  iuiportant 
offices  in  the  work  of  salvation  as  the  Father;  and 
they  appear  no  less  glorious  in  their  offices,  than  the 
Father  does  in  his.  The  glories  of  divine  nature 
shine  in  each.  Subordination  in  the  work  of  redemp- 
tion is  one  of  its  divine  perfections;  and  it  argues 
nothing  against  the  divinity  of  the  Son;  it  is  not  derog- 
atory to  his  nature  or  character  that  he  manifests  this 
perfection. 

Some  names  and  works  are  attributed  exclusively  to 
the  Father,  and  others  are  attributed  exclusively  to 
the  Son.  This  does  not  appear  strange,  when  it  is 
considered  that  they  had  diiferent  offices,  and  had 
different  parts  to  perform  in  the  work  of  salvation. 
As  the  Father  holds  a  precedence  in  respect  to  office, 
it  is  not  surprising  that  those  names  and  works,  which 
have  an  immediate  relation  to  his  office,  should  appear 
to  have  a  preeminence  over  the  names  and  works, 
which  have  an  immediate  relation  to  the  Son's  office. 
The  Father  is  called,  "The  God  and  Father  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ;"  Eph.  1:3.  and  1  Pet.  1:3.  He  is 
called  the  Head  of  Christ.  "The  Head  of  every  man 
is  Christ — and  the  Head  of  Christ  is  God;"  1  Cor. 
11:3.  The  Son  is  called  "the  only  begotten  of  the 
Father;"  John  1:14.  He  is  called  "the  image  of  the 
invisible  God;"  Col.  1:15.  He  is  called  Mediator. 
"For  there  is  one  God,  and  one  Mediator  between  God 
and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus;"  1  Tim.  2:5.  To 
infer  from  these  names  of  the  Son  that  his  nature  is 
inferior  to  the  nature  of  the  Father  is  not  logical. 
The  name  Father  is  more  dignified  than  the  name 
Son.  But  who  ever  supposed  that  the  nature  of  a 
father  was  essentially  different  from,  or  superior  to, 
that  of  his  son?  The  7nan  Christ  Jesus  had  a  Head, 
a  God,  as  well  as  other  men;  even  the  Father.  His 
office  required  subordination.  Because  the  Son  is 
called  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  it  does  not  fol- 


IN    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OF    GOD.        59 

low  that  his  nature  is  Inferior.  It  is  common  language 
to  say,  one  person  is  the  very  image  of  another.  But 
this  expression  is  never  understood  to  mean  that  he, 
who  is  called  the  image,  is  inferior  to  him,  of  whom 
he  is  the  image.  The  name,  or  the  office  of  Mediator 
does  not  necessarily  imply  that  he,  who  acts  in  this 
office,  is  inferior  to  either  party,  between  whom  lie 
mediates.  There  is  no  higher  name  given  to  tfie 
Deity  than  the  name  Jehovah.  This  name  is  given 
to  the  Son.  It  is  believed  that  the  unqualified  name 
Jehovah  is  not  given  to  any  creature.  If  there  be 
any  proof  of  divinity  from  a  name,  the  Son  has  as  high 
proof  as  the  Father. 

Some  works  are  peculiar  to  the  Father.  Others 
are  peculiar  to  the  Son.  This  is  not  strange,  as  they 
hold  different  offices.  The  Father  begat  the  Son. 
"This  day  have  /  begotten  thee;"  Ph.  2:7.  The 
Father  sent  the  Son  into  the  world.  He  gave  him  all 
authority  in  heaven  and  in  earth.  He  hath  highly 
exalted  him.  Christ  ivas  begotten.  He  came  into  the 
world  and  assumed  human  nature.  "The  Word  was 
made  flesh;"  John  1:14.  He  humbled,  or  emptied 
himself.  He  died;  rose,  ascended  to  the  Father;  and 
makes  intercession.     He    made  an  atonement  for  sin. 

We  are  taught  by  the  word  of  inspiration  in  what 
sense  the  Father  begat  the  Son.  "God  hath  fulfilled 
the  same  unto  us  their  children,  in  that  he  hath  raised 
tip  Jesus  again,  as  it  is  also  written  in  the  second  Psalm, 
Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee;" 
Acts  13:13.  This  act  of  begetting,  therefore,  relates 
only  to  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ.  Nothing,  of  course, 
can  be  inferred  from  this  respecting  that  nature  of 
his,  which  had  glory  with  the  Father  before  the  world 
was. 

The  act  of  sending  does  not  imply  that  he,  who 
sends,  possesses  a  higher  nature  than  the  one  who 
was  sent.  It  only  designates  superiority  of  office. 
The  chief  magistrate  of  a  nation  sends  an  ambassador 
to  a  foreign  court.     This  act  affords  no  evidence  that 


/ 

[^    SE 


60         IN    WH^   SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OF    GOD. 

the  fortri'er  possesses  a  nature  superior  to  the  latter; 
or  that  he  possesses  higher  quahfications.  It  only 
proves  his  iiigher  office.  All  things  were  delivered 
unto  Christ  by  the  Father.  All  authority  in  heaven 
and  in  earth  were  given  to  him.  This  communication 
does  not  imply  an  imparting  of  any  qualities  or  qualifi- 
cations to  him.  It  rather  implies  that  he  possessed^ 
the  necessary  qualifications  lor  this  office.  It  is  not 
difficult  to  imagine  what  qualifications  are  necessary 
in  order  to  exercise  all  authority  in  heaven  and  in 
earth.  To  receive  this  authority  only  implies  a  subor- 
dination of  office. 

Because  Christ  was  exalted  by  the  Father,  it  has 
been  inferred  that  he  was  not  divine,  as  Divinity  is  not 
capable  of  exaltation.  The  man  Christ  Jesus  receives 
great  reward,  great  honor,  great  exaltation  in  conse- 
quence of  the  part  he  performed  on  earth.  He  is 
seated  on  the  right  hand  of  God.  If  it  be  admitted 
that  the  Son  of  God  was  in  a  state  of  humiliation 
when  he  was  upon  earth;  that  he  emptied  himself  of 
that  glory,  which  he  had  with  the  Father  before  the 
world  was,  there  will  be  no  difficulty  in  admitting  his 
exaltation,  when  he  returns  to  his  former  glory;  and 
as  Savior  receives  the  bowing  of  every  knee,  of  things 
in  heaven  and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the 
earth;  and  the  confession  of  every  tongue  that  he  is 
Lord.  Such  is  the  union  of  nature  and  connexion  of 
office  between  the  Son  and  the  Father,  that  this  exal- 
tation, this  glory  of  the  Son  will  also  be  "to  the  glory 
of  God  the  Father." 

The  peculiar  union  of  the  Son  of  God  with  humanity 
affijrds  no  evidence  against  his  Divinity.  While  he 
was  in  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  he  concealed,  in  a  great 
nieasu.e,  the  glories  of  his  nature;  and  he  suffered  a 
reproach,  an  ignominy,  which  before  had  not  been 
given  him.  But  this  concealment  of  his  glory,  this 
dishonor  offered  to  him  does  not  imply  a  change  in 
his  nature.  If  a  king  descend  from  his  throne,  assume 
the  appearance  of  one  of  his  subjects,  and  receive  rude 


IN    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OP   GOD.  1 

treatment  from  them,  these  circumstances  effect  no 
change  in  his  nature,  nor  do  they  imply  it.  We  do 
not  attempt  to  explain  the  union,  which  subsists 
between  the  Son  oi"  God  and  the  son  of  man.  When 
those,  who  maintain  that  God  the  Father  was  in 
Jesus  Christ;  that  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead,  which 
dwelt  bodily  in  him  was  the  Father,  not  the  Son, 
will  explain  that  union  of  Deity  with  humanity,  their 
explanation  will  answer  our  purpose  as  well  as  theirs. 

If  Adam  could  with  propriety  be  called  Son  of 
God,  with  tlie  same  propriety  could  Christ,  in  respect 
to  his  human  nature,  be  called  Son  of  God.  Adam 
was  formed  by  the  immediate  act  of  divine  power. 
The  child  Jesus  was  also  formed  by  the  immediate 
act  of  the  same  power.  But  in  a  different,  and  in  a 
higher  sense  is  Christ  the  Son  of  God.  He  is  not 
only  called  Son,  but  he  is  called  the  oivn  Son;  the 
dearly  beloved  Son;  the  first  begotten,  the  only  begot- 
ten Son.  These  additions  to  his  name  are  marks  of 
peculiar  distinction. 

The  term  son,  when  applied  to  Adam,  in  relation 
to  his  heavenly  Father,  has  a  signification  different 
from  what  it  has,  when  applied  to  any  of  the  human 
race,  in  relation  to  their  earthly  parents.  If  the  rela- 
tive term  son,  necessarily  implied  derived  existence, 
then  the  first  man  as  literally  derived  his  nature  from 
the  substance  of  God,  as  children  derive  their  natures 
from  the  substance  of  their  parents.  But  a  word 
does  not  always  signify  the  same  thing.  Sometimes 
it  is  used  in  an  extensive,  sometimes  in  a  restricted 
sense.  Sometimes  it  is  used  literally,  sometimes 
figuratively.  When  a  word  is  used  figuratively,  there 
is  a  resemblance  between  the  thing  signififd  by  it 
literally,  and  the  thing  signified  by  it  figuratively. 
When  God  is  called  a  rock,  the  propriety  ol  the  figure 
arises  from  some  points  of  resemblance  betwjen  God 
and  a  rock.  The  rpialities  of  this  hard  substance  are 
expressive  of  the  steadfastness  and  durability  of  the 
divine  nature.     Christ  is  called  a  shield.     This  piece 


62        m    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OP    GOD. 

of  armor  was  formerly  used  in  war  to  secure  the  body 
from  the  weapons  of  the  enemy.  Christ  is  a  defence 
against  the  attacks  of  the  great  adversary.  The 
Savior  is  called  a  vine.  A  vine  has  many  branches, 
and  it  supports  them  all.  The  Savior  has  many  mem- 
bers, and  they  all  derive  support  from  him.  Christ  is 
called  a  shepherd.  A  shepherd  feeds  and  defends 
his  flock.  Christ  feeds  his  followers  with  spiritual 
food;  and  he  defends  them  against  the  attacks  of  their 
enemies.  Many  other  names  are  figuratively  applied 
to  Christ.  Because  he  is  called  a  Shield,  a  Vine,  a 
Shepherd,  it  does  not  follow  that  he  is  literally  a 
shield,  a  vine,  a  shepherd.  The  propriety  and  force 
of  these  appellations  arise  from  some  striking  resem- 
blance there  is  between  the  Savior  and  those  things, 
by  whose  name  he  is  called.  Figurative  language  is 
peculiarly  significant  and  striking.  When  it  is  wished 
to  convey  ideas  of  an  object,  with  which  people  are 
but  little  acquainted,  no  method  is  so  concise  and  eligi- 
ble, as  to  compare  it  with  something,  or  call  it  by  a 
name,  with  which  people  are  acquainted.  Then,  by 
selecting  the  most  prominent  qualities  of  the  best 
known  part  of  the  comparison,  they  may  be  applied 
to  that  part  of  the  comparison,  which  is  less  known. 
By  this  method  ideas  are  frequently  conveyed  with 
greater  clearness  and  force.  When  Christ  wished  to 
impress  it  upon  the  minds  of  people  that  he  pointed 
out  the  course,  which  led  to  heaven;  that  only  through 
his  merits  and  mediation  mankind  could  have  access 
to  the  mercy-seat;  that  he  communicates  only  truth; 
that  he  was  th^  origin  and  support  of  spiritual  life  in 
the  soul,  it  was  with  peculiar  pertinence  and  force  he 
said,  "I  am  the  way,  and  the  truth,  and  the  life." 

It  may  be  inquired  how  it  can  be  known  when  a 
passage  of  scripture  is  to  be  understood  literally,  and 
when  it  is  to  be  understood  figuratively.  Without 
giving  any  general  directions  in  answer  to  this  inquiry, 
it  is  sufficient  for  the  present  purpose  to  lay  down  one 
particular  rule;  viz.  if  any  text  or  expression  of  scrip- 


IN    WHAT    SENSE   CHRIST    IS   THE    SON    OF    GOD.         63 

ture,  taken  literally,  be  an  impossibility  or  an  absurdity, 
it  must  be  taken  figuratively.  For  example,  "If  any 
man  come  to  me,  and  hate  not  his  father,  and  mother, 
and  wife,  and  children,  and  brethren,  and  sisters,  yea, 
and  his  own  life  also,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple."  As 
it  is  impossible  that  a  real  hating  of  these  near  con- 
nexions should  be  a  necessary  ingredient  in  the  char- 
acter of  Christ's  disciples,  the  word  hate,  must  be 
understood  in  a  comparative  or  figurative  sense.  The 
phrase,  Son  of  God,  cannot  be  understood  in  a  literal 
sense;  because  it  is  Impossible  that  God  should  have  a 
Son  derived  from  his  nature,  as  a  child  is  derived  from 
its  parents.  It  is  impossible  that  divine  nature,  and 
divine  attributes  should  be  communicated,  unless  the 
original  proprietor  sustained  a  loss  of  them.  It  is 
impossible  there  should  be  two  separate  and  distinct 
divine  natures,  without  admitting  the  existence  of  two 
gods.  If  the  expression.  Son  of  God,  cannot  be  taken 
literally,  it  must  be  taken  figuratively. 

As  Christ  is  called  the  Son  of  God,  as  he  cannot  be 
his  literal  and  proper  Son,  it  may  be  expected  there 
is  a  striking  resemblance  between  the  relationship, 
which  Jesus  Christ  bears  to  the  Father,  and  the  rela- 
tionship, which  a  son  bears  to  his  parents.  Although 
we  cannot  comprehend  the  mode  of  divine  subsistence, 
yet  there  are  points  of  coincidence  in  the  comparison, 
which  give  beauty  and  force  to  the  figure. 

1.  There  is  a  similarity  of  nature  between  a  son 
and  his  father.  There  is  often  a  family  likeness.  A 
son  often  inherits  the  aspect  of  his  father.  He  often 
inherits  the  distinguishing  characteristics  of  body  and 
mind,  which  his  father  possessed.  His  moral  nature 
and  character  often  resemble  those  of  his  father. 
Though  there  be  some  dissimilarity  between  a  father 
and  his  son;  yet  there  are  probably  no  two  objects  in 
the  rational  world,  which  sustain  a  more  striking 
resemblance.  Their  bodies  are  of  similar  substance 
and  of  similar  configuration.  Their  minds  are  of  simi- 
lar  natures,  and  of  similar  powers  and  faculties. 


64         IN    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OF    GOD. 

The  resemblance  there  is  between  a  son  and  his 
father,  is  one  reason  why  Christ  is  called  Son  of  God; 
and  that  God  is  called  his  Father.  His  nature  is  simi- 
lar to  that  of  the  Father.  By  this  expression  it  is 
not  designed  to  convey  the  idea  that  the  Son  and 
Father  are  two  distinct  natures;  nor  is  it  designed  to 
convey  the  idea  that  the  Son  is  the  Father,  and  the 
Father  is  the  Son.  Like  the  Father,  the  Son  is  divine. 
Like  the  Father,  he  is  eternal,  self-existent,  and  inde- 
pendent. There  is  a  perfect  resemblance  between 
them;  and  there  is  a  mysterious  union,  by  which  many 
things  may  be  predicated  of  both.  Tbis  striking 
similarity  is  one  reason  why  Christ  is  called  Son  of 
God. 

2.  There  is  a  near  and  endearing  relationship  sub- 
sisting between  a  son  and  his  father.  The  former 
proceeded  from  the  latter.  There  is  no  relationship 
more  near  and  endearing  than  this.  This  then  is 
another  reason  why  Jesus  Christ  is  called  the  Son  of 
God.  The  union,  which  subsists  between  them,  forms 
a  relationship,  which  is  nearer  than  any,  which  can 
be  formed  by  flesh  and  blood.  He  is  in  the  bosom 
of  the  Father;  he  is  one  with  the  Father;  they,  who 
have  seen  him,  have  seen  the  Father  also.  Mutual 
affection  subsists  between  them. 

3.  A  son,  while  under  the  care  and  support  of  his 
father,  is  subordinate  to  him.  He  is  not  subordinate 
in  respect  to  nature.  For  he  possesses  all  the  essential 
qualities,  which  his  father  possesses.  But  he  is  in 
subjection  to  him.  He  submits  to  parental  authority; 
and  he  appears  to  the  greatest  advantage  when  he 
is  in  his  proper  place,  the  place  of  obedience.  Christ 
may,  with  propriety  be  called  a  Son,  in  respect  to  his 
subordination  to  his  heavenly  Father.  In  the  economy 
of  redemption  different  works  are  to  be  performed; 
different  offices  are  to  be  occupied.  Methodical 
arrangement  must  be  established  and  acknowledged. 
The  Father  holds  the  place  of  authority;  Christ  holds 
the  place  of  submission.     This  order  of  offices  implies 


IN   WHAT   SENSE   CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OP   GOD.        65 

no  arbitrary  power,  nor  servile  subjection.  It  is  es- 
tablished with  the  greatest  cordiality.  It  is  the  office 
of  the  Father  to  appoint;  it  is  the  office  of  Christ 
to  act  under  his  commission.  It  is  the  office  of  Christ 
to  ask,  and  it  is  the  office  of  the  Father  to  grant  his 
requests.  The  Father  is  under  as  much  obligation, 
according  to  the  covenant  of  redemption,  to  grant 
the  intercessions  of  his  Son,  as  the  Son  is  to  submit 
to  the  authority  of  the  Father.  The  sacred  scrip- 
tures represent  the  Holy  Spirit  to  be  as  subordinate 
to  the  Son,  as  the  Son  is  to  the  Father.  Christ  said 
to  his  disciples,  "It  is  expedient  for  you  that  I  go 
away;  for  if  I  go  not  away,  the  Comforter  will  not 
come  unto  you;  but  if  I  depart,  I  will  send  him  unto 
you." 

4.  A  father  loves  his  son.  The  similarity  of  nature, 
the  relationship,  and  the  subordination,  produce  a 
strong  atfection  in  a  father's  breast.  God  the  Father 
loves  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  He  loves  him  for  his 
excellence  of  nature.  He  loves  him  for  his  holiness. 
He  loves  him  for  his  union  with  himself  He  loves 
him  for  the  faithful  performance  of  the  duties  of  his 
office.  The  Father  has  declared  him  to  be  his  own 
Son;  his  dearly  beloved  Son,  in  whom  he  is  well 
pleased.  The  love,  which  he  exercises  toward  him 
is  another  reason,  for  which  he  calls  him  his  Son. 

Christ  is  not  only  called  a  Son,  but  he  is  called  a 
begotten  Son.  People,  who  have  understood  the 
term  Son,  literally,  have  also  understood  the  term 
beget,  or  begotten,  literally.  They  have  supposed 
there  was  a  power  in  the  Father  to  generate,  and  a 
power  in  the  Son  to  be  generated.  They  were  aware 
that  this  method,  if  it  were  not  qualified,  supposed  a 
posteriority  of  existence  in  the  Son.  To  remedy 
this  difficulty  they  maintained  that  the  essence  of 
the  Son  was  not  begotten;  but  his  perso}i  was  begotten. 
The  distinction  between  his  nature  and  person,  they 
made  to  consist  in  something,  which  was  incommuni- 
cable from  the  Father  to  the  Son,  or  from  the  Son  to 
9 


66         IN    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OF    GOD. 

the  Father.  They  held,  that  the  Father  had  a 
power  to  beget,  and  the  Son  had  a  power  to  be 
begotten. 

There  appears  to  be  no  small  degree  of  inconsist- 
ency in  this  hypothesis.  It  supposes  that  there  is  no 
other  difference  between  the  Father  and  the  Son.  than 
this;  the  Father  had  a  power  to  beget.  But  wiiat 
did  he  beget?  He  begat  the  person  of  the  Son;  i.  e. 
according  to  the  hypothesis,  he  begat  a  power  in  the 
Son  to  be  begotten.  The  hypothesis  first  supposes 
the  existence  of  the  Son;  then  it  supposes  the  pro- 
duction of  some  distinguishing  personal  quality,  which 
he  already  possessed.  Or  it  supposes  that  he  possesses 
some  adventitious  quality,  for  which  he  was  entirely 
dependent.  To  avoid  the  imputation  of  dependence 
to  Christ,  they  maintained  the  eternal  generation  of 
the  Son.  Thus  they  secured  their  sentiment  from 
refutation  in  the  obscurity  of  language. 

The  human  nature  of  Christ  was  begotten;  but  his 
divine  nature  was  unbegotten.  The  Son  of  God  was 
always  the  same  in  his  nature  and  attributes,  and  in  his 
union  and  relationship  to  his  heavenly  Father.  In  a 
figurative  sense  he  might  be  said  to  be  begotten, 
when  he  actually  came  into  the  office  of  Redeemer; 
received  mediatorial  authority,  and  became  submissive 
to  God  the  Father.  He  might  be  said  to  be  begot- 
ten, when  he  was  manifested  on  earth  in  the  office  of 
Redeemer;  and  by  the  name.  Son  of  God.  Those 
are  said  to  be  begotten,  who  are  brought  out  of  one 
state  into  another.  Paul  to  the  Corinthians  says,  "In 
Christ  Jesus  I  have  begotten  you  through  the  gospel." 
To  Philemon  he  says,  "1  beseech  thee  for  my  son 
Onesimus,  whom  I  have  begotten  in  my  bonds." 
Christ  may  be  said  to  be  begotten  by  his  resurrection 
from  the  dead.  By  this  act  he  was  more  fully  declared 
to  the  world  than  he  before  had  been.  Before  this 
time,  even  his  disciples  were  exceedingly  ignorant  of 
him;  the  design  of  his  coming,  and  the  nature  of  his 
kingdom.     By  his  resurrection  his  own  prophecy  was 

I 


IN    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OF    GOD.         67 

fulfilled,  and  he  was  in  a  capacity  for  making  more  full 
displays  of  the  divine  will  by  making  more  copious 
communications  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  apostle  Paul 
appears  to  have  viewed  the  resurrection  of  Christ  in 
this  light  when  he  said  to  the  Jews,  "God  hath  ful- 
filled the  same  unto  us  their  children,  in  that  he  hath 
raised  up  Jesus  again;  as  it  is  also  written  in  the  second 
Psalm,  Thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten 
thee."  The  circumstances  attending  Christ  in  his  intro- 
durtion  into  office;  his  introduction  into  the  world;  his 
resurrection  from  the  dead,  are  similar  in  some  respects 
to  the  production  of  a  human  son.  The  circumstances 
are  so  analogous  that  there  is  a  foundation  for  calling 
Christ  a   begotten  Son. 

Christ  is  also  called  the  only  begotten  Son.  By  the 
law  of  analogy  there  is  a  striking  propriety  in  this 
expression.  In  his  human  nature  no  one  was  ever  so 
begotten  as  he  was.  In  his  divine  nature  no  one  ever 
sustained  those  offices;  that  intimate  union  and  near 
relationship  to  the  Father,  which  he  sustained.  Par- 
ents often  feel  an  extraordinary  affection  for  an  only,  or 
an  only  begotten  son.  When  God  required  Abraham 
to  offi3r  Isaac  in  sacrifice,  he  commanded  him  saying, 
take  now  thy  son,  thine  only  son.  The  apostle,  speak- 
ing of  the  faith  of  Abraham,  calls  Isaac  his  only  begot- 
ten son.  At  that  time  Abraham  had  another,  and  an 
older  son.  But  he  had  an  extraordinary  affisction  for 
this  younger  son;  and  on  account  of  this  strong  afTec- 
tion,  God  called  him  his  only  son;  and  by  the  mouth  of 
his  apostle  he  called  him  his  only  begotten  son.  There 
is  analogy  in  nature,  therefore,  for  calling  Christ  the 
only  begotten  Son  of  God.  The  Father  loves  him  with 
an  everlasting  love.  He  loves  him  for  the  excellence 
of  his  nature,  and  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  duties  of 
his  oflices.  No  language  was  better  calculated  to 
convey  the  idea  of  God's  great  love  to  Christ  than 
this. 

Christ  is  repeatedly  called  in  the  scriptures  the  first 
horn.,  the,  first  begotten.     This  language  is  also  figura- 


68        IiV    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OF    GOD. 

tive.  The  propriety  and  force  of  this  figure  arise 
from  the  peculiar  prerogatives  of  the  first  born  of 
God's  ancient  chosen  people.  The  first  born  was 
principal  heir  of  his  father's  substance.  He  had 
dominion  over  his  brethren.  Isaac,  in  blessing  Jacob, 
said,  "Be  lord  over  thy  brethren;  and  let  thy  mother's 
sons  bow  down  to  thee."  It  was  the  privilege  of  the 
first  born  to  have  the  priest's  office.  In  all  these 
respects  there  is  such  a  similarity  between  the  pre- 
rogatives of  the  first  born  and  the  prerogatives  of 
Christ,  that  there  is  a  peculiar  propriety  in  calling 
him  the  first  born.  God  hath  appointed  him  heir  of 
all  things.  Christ  is  said  to  be  the  first  born  among 
many  brethren,  denoting  he  has  dominion  over  them. 
It  is  written,  that  the  Father  hath  given  him  authority 
to  execute  judgment;  that  all  power  is  given  to  him 
in  heaven  and  in  earth.  He  performed  the  duties  of 
a  priest.  He  was  formally  consecrated  to  the  priest's 
office.  He  made  intercession  for  the  people,  and 
offered  sacrifice  for  their  sins. 

Christ  is  called  the  first  born  of  every  creature. 
Some  have  understood  by  this  that  he  is  the  first  cre- 
ated being.  It  has  been  shewn  in  what  sense  he  is 
the  first  born;  and  it  appears  that  in  all  things  he  has 
the  preeminence.  Besides,  the  original,  from  which 
this  passage  is  translated,  might  with  equal  propriety 
be  rendeied,  horn  before  every  creature.  Christ  is 
likewise  the  first  born,  the  first  begotten  from  the 
dead.  He  is  called  the  first  fruits  of  them  that  slept. 
Christ  was  first  born  from  the  dead  in  respect  to  his 
dignity.  He  was  Lord  of  the  dead.  Never  did  the 
tomb  hold  so  glorious  a  prisoner.  Never  did  such 
circumstances  attend  the  resurrection  of  any  other. 
This  holy  One  did  not  see  corruption.  His  resurrec- 
tion was  first,  or  he  was  the  first  born  from  the  dead, 
inasmuch  as  his  resurrection  proved,  and  was  the  pro- 
curing cause  of  the  resurrection  of  those,  who  had 
been,  or  would  be,  under  the  dominion  of  death.  "If 
the  dead  rise  not,  then  is  not  Christ  raised;  but  now 


IN    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OF    GOD.         69 

is  Christ  risen  and  become  the  first  fruits  of  them 
that  slept." 

In  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  God  called 
Christ  tlie  Son,  and  my  Son.  From  these  expressions 
the  Jews  expected  that  the  Messiah  was  the  Son  of 
God;  and  it  appears  they  expected  he  would  appear 
with  that  title,  and  in  that  character.  Although  Jesus 
Christ  was  somewhat  obscurely  revealed  under  the 
Jewish  dispensation;  yet  the  phrase,  the  Son,  my  Son, 
had,  in  their  opinion,  a  peculiar  and  appropriate 
meaning,  a  meaning  different  from  the  term  son,  when 
applied  to  any  of  the  human  race. 

The  Jews,  in  consequence  of  the  revelations,  which 
they  possessed,  expected  a  glorious  personage  in  the 
Messiah.  Had  their  expectations  been  realised  in 
respect  to  his  appearance,  it  seems,  according  to  human 
calculation,  that  they  would  have  acknowledged  him 
to  be  the  Messiah;  that  they  would  not  have  been 
offended,  if  he  had  claimed  the  title.  Son  of  God. 
But  when  they  saw  his  humble  appearance;  when 
they  saw  his  object  was  different  from  Vv^hat  they 
expected,  they  viewed  him  as  a  mere  man.  When 
he  called  God  his  Father;  when  he  called  himself  the 
Son  of  God,  they  considered  him  making  pretensions 
to  divinity;  assuming  the  place  of  the  Messiah;  and 
making  himself  equal  with  God.  They  supposed  the 
title  implied  divine  nature.  They,  of  course,  consid- 
ered him  blasphemous  when  he  made  such  preten- 
sions. As  he  did  not  correct  them  for  error  in  their 
construction  of  the  title  Son  of  God,  it  is  presumable 
they  put  a  right  construction  upon  it. 

Because  a  son  signifies  a  natural  descendant  from 
parents,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  divine  Son  is  a 
natural  descendant  from  his  heavenly  Father.  We 
often  reason  from  one  thing  to  another.  But  the  rules 
of  analogy  are  of  limited  extent;  and  they  are  greatly 
confined  in  their  application.  There  is  a  resemblance 
and  proportion  between  different  things  in  some  par- 
ticulars.    But  beyond  a   certain   extent   resemblance 


70         IN    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OF    GOD. 

and  proportion  fail.  There  is  a  resemblance  between 
a  man  and  a  brute.  Their  bodies  are  material,  and 
they  are  both  sensitive.  But,  because  the  rational 
principle  in  man  is  capable  of  improvement,  it  does  not 
follow  that  the  instinct  of  brutes  possesses  the  same 
capacity.  Because  the  bodies  of  both  are  mortal, 
it  does  not  follow  that  both  will  be  reorganized  and 
reanimated.  The  human  mind  bears  some  resem- 
blance to  the  divine  mind.  It  was  formed  after  its 
likeness.  But  there  is  no  proportion  between  what  is 
finite  and  what  is  infinite.  Because  God  has  given  a 
power  to  human  nature  to  produce  and  perpetuate  its 
kind,  it  follows,  God  has  a  power  to  produce  the  same 
kind.  The  inference  is  corroborated  by  the  fact,  that 
he  did  originally  produce  it.  But  from  these  premises 
it  does  not  follow  that  he  has  a  power  to  produce  a 
divine  species.  No  rules  of  logic,  no  analogy  of  nature 
will  justify  such  an  inference.  It  is  a  natural  impos- 
sibility that  infinite  power  should  produce  infinite 
power;  that  an  eternal  Being  should  produce  an  eter- 
nal Being;  that  self-existence  should  produce  self-exist- 
ence. Because  this  confounds  cause  and  effect.  It  is 
a  natural  impossibilitj^  that  a  divine  nature  should  not 
have  divine  attributes.  Because  a  nature  is  designa- 
ted by  its  attributes.  It  is  a  natural  impossibility 
that  divine  attributes  should  be  limited  by  any  thing 
foreign  from  their  own  nature.  Because  it  is  the  pre- 
rogative of  divine  attributes  that  they  have  no  supe- 
rior. As  far  as  there  are  points  of  likeness  and  pro- 
portion between  things  there  is  analogy;  and  so  far 
analogical  reasoning  may  be  used,  and  no  further. 

To  obviate  the  sentiment  that  Christ  is  Son  of  God 
by  derivation,  it  is  not  necessary  to  have  recourse  to 
the  peculiar  mode  of  the  conception  of  his  humanity 
as  a  priynary  reason  of  his  sonship.  Without  doubt 
this  is  one  reason,  for  which  he  is  called  Son  of  God; 
but  for  other  and  more  important  reasons  he  is  called 
the  Son  of  God,  the  first  begotten,  the  only  begotten, 
the  dearly  beloved,  the  own  Son.     If  the  humanity  of 


,IN    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OF    GOD.         71 

Christ  was  the  principal  ground  of  calling  him  Son  of 
God,  then  Adam  was  Son  of  God  in  as  high  sense  as 
Christ;  for  his  nature  was  no  less  the  immediate  effect 
of  God's  power  than  the  humanity  of  Jesus  Christ. 
The  angels,  beiug  of  a  more  exalted  nature  than 
humanity,  they  would  be  sons  of  God  in  a  higher  sense 
than  the  human  nature  of  Christ.  When  the  apostle 
Paul  to  the  Hebrews  describes  the  excellence  of 
Christ,  and  contrasts  him  with  angels,  he  infers  his 
superiority  from  this  circumstance,  that  God  called 
him  his  Son;  but  never  gave  this  distinguishing  appel- 
lation to  them;  and  that  he  promises  to  be  to  him  a 
Father,  and  that  he  should  be  to  him  a  Son.  Because 
this  promise  is  in  future  tense,  it  does  not  follow  that 
his  humanity  is  the  primary  ground  of  his  sonship,  or 
that  his  sonship  originated  with  his  incarnation.  As 
he  had  not  been  clearly  manifested  to  the  world  by 
that  name  and  in  that  relationship  to  the  Father  before 
this  prediction,  it  was  proper,  in  view  of  the  manifes- 
tation of  him  as  Son  in  the  flesh  to  make  the  promise 
in  future  time,  although  the  relationship  then  actually 
existed.  After  God  delivered  Israel  from  Egyptian 
bondage,  he  promised  them  saying,  I  will  walk  among 
you;  and  will  be  your  God;  and  ye  shall  be  my  people. 
This  promise  is  in  future  time;  but  who  doubts  that 
God  walked  among  them  at  that  time;  and  at  that 
time  he  was.  their  God  and  that  they  were  his  people? 
As  the  relationship  was  to  continue,  it  was  proper  to 
make  the  declaration  in  future  tense.  As  the  rela- 
tionship between  the  Father  and  the  Son  was  perma- 
nent, it  was  no  lef«j  proper  to  declare  it  in  future  than 
in  present  time. 

"Thou  art  my  Son;  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee." 
If  God's  declaration  to  Christ  that  he  would  be  his 
Father  and  that  Christ  would  be  his  Son,  must  neces- 
sarily be  taken  in  future  tense,  this  declaration  of  the 
Psalmist  must,  by  the  same  necessity,  be  taken  in  the 
present  tense.  It  would,  of  course,  follow  that  the 
Son   was  begotten   at  the  time  the  Psalm,  containing 


72        IN    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OF    GOD. 

this  declaration,  was  written.  But  in  prophetic  lan- 
guage it  is  not  uncommon  that  one  tense  is  put  for 
another.  The  prophet  Isaiah  described  the  sufferings 
of  the  Messiah  many  centuries  before  he  suffered,  in 
the  present,  and  in  the  past  tense.  The  prophetic 
writings,  and  the  peculiar  idiom  of  the  Hebrew  lan- 
guage admit  some  variation  of  tense.  "Thou  art  my 
Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee."  The  apostle 
Paul  does  not  consider  this  passage  to  have  relation 
to  the  nativity  of  Jesus,  but  to  his  resurrection.  In  his 
address  to  the  men  of  Israel  he  said,  "We  declare  unto 
you  glad  tidings,  how  that  the  promise,  which  was 
made  unto  the  fathers,  God  hath  fulfilled  the  same 
unto  us  their  children  in  that  lie  hath  raised  tip  Jesus 
again,  as  it  is  also  written  in  the  second  Psalm,  Thou 
art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee."  It  ap- 
pears, of  course,  that,  when  Christ  is  called  the  first 
begotten,  the  only  begotten  Son,  these  terms  do  not 
designate  the  origin  of  his  human  nature,  but  are 
applied  to  him  in  a  higher  and  in  a  more  distinguish- 
ing sense.  The  apostle  Paul  to  the  Romans,  speaking 
of  Christ  says,  "Declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with 
power  according  to  the  Spirit  of  holiness,  by  the  resur- 
rection from  the  dead.^''  He  is  also  called  "the  first 
born  from  the  dead."  Hence  it  follows  that  the  terms 
begotten  and  born  when  applied  to  Christ  are  not 
always  to  be  understood  literally;  that  they  do  not 
always  apply  to  his  nativity. 

The  discourse,  which  Gabriel  had  with  Mary,  has, 
more  than  once,  been  used  to  prove  that  the  filiation 
of  Christ  originated  from  his  incarn;»tion.  "The  angel 
answered  and  said  unto  her.  The  Holy  Ghost  shall 
come  upon  thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall 
overshadow  thee,  therefore,  also,  that  holy  thing  that 
shall  be  born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God." 
The  holy  thing,  which  was  to  be  born  of  Mary,  was 
the  holy  Child  Jesus.  This  Child  was  called  the  Son 
of  God.  Christ  was  called  the  Son  of  God,  the  first 
begotten,  the   only  begotten  Son;  when  the   Father 


IN    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OF    GOD.         73 

declared,  "This  is  my  beloved  Son  in  whom  I  am  well 
pleased."  These  distinguishing  and  endearing  appel- 
lations were  not  applied  exclusively  to  the  humanity 
of  Christ.  They  were  applied  to  him  when  Divinity 
and  humanity  were  united.  If  the  humanity  of  Christ 
sustained  a  nearer  relationship  to  the  Father  than  his 
Divinity,  there  would  be  ground  for  applying  the 
terms,  importing  the  nearest  relationship,  primarily 
to  his  human  nature.  But  as  there  is  not  that  near- 
ness of  relationship  between  God  and  a  creature  that 
there  is  in  the  divine  nature,  it  is  presumable  that 
those  appellations,  which  import  the  nearest  relation- 
ship, were  applied  primarily  to  that  nature  of  Christ, 
which  bore  the  nearest  relationship  to  the  Father. 
Consequently  they  could  not  have  a  primary  reference 
to  his  humanity.  So  intimate  was  the  union  between 
the  Divinity  and  humanity  of  Christ,  that  it  is  not 
doubted  that  the  name  Son  might  with  propriety,  be 
applied  to  either  nature  distinctly  or  to  both  natures 
conjointly;  and  at  the  same  time  primary  reference 
be  made  to  his  divine  nature. 

The  apostle  to  the  Galatians,  speaking  of  Christ, 
says,  "When  the  fulness  of  the  time  was  come,  God 
sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of  a  woman;  made  under  the 
law,  to  redeem  them  that  are  under  the  law."  This 
text  does  not  teach  how  Christ  became  God's  Son.  It 
does  not  teach  that  his  Sonship  originated  from  his 
being  made  of  a  woman.  The  original  word  in  this 
text,  translated  mac?c,  might  with  much  more  propriety 
be  translated  born.  The  text,  thus  translated,  would 
stand  in  this  manner,  "God  sent  forth  his  Son,  born  of 
a  woman,  born  under  the  law."  It  is  not  true  that 
the  humanity  of  Jesus  was  wholly  made  of  a  woman. 
His  human  spirit  was  not  derived  from  Mary.  She 
did  not  impart  any  portion  of  her  spirit  to  his  b6dy. 
Spirit  is  not  divisible;  and  of  course  it  is  not  a  subject 
of  propagation.  The  body  and  soul  of  Jesus  were 
both  6orn  of  Mary.  It  is  presumable  that  Divinity 
was  united  to  his  body  before  his  birth,  that  it  was 
10 


74         IN    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OF    GOLf. 

united  at  the  time  of  his  conception;  that  both  natures 
were  brought  into  the  world  in  union.  Before  Jesus 
was  born,  he  was  called  that  holy  thing.  Though  the 
holj  thing  might  embrace  only  his  humanity;  yet  it 
was  probably  called  holy,  not  only  on  account  of  his 
immaculate  conception,  but  on  account  of  his  union 
with  Divinity.  It  is  evident  that  divine  nature  was 
in  union  with  the  child  Jesus  immediately  after  his 
birth,  because  he  was  called  Emmanuel,  which  signi- 
fies, "God  with  us."  The  name  would  not  be  appro- 
priate if  divine  nature  were  not  united  with  the  human 
nature  of  Jesus.  As  there  is  nothing  recorded,  which 
affordi?  e\ldpnr.p  that  such  union  occurred  after  his 
birth,  it  is  presumable  that  it  occurred  before  this 
event.  In  view  of  these  suggestions  the  text  under 
consideration  reads  naturally,  "God  sent  forth  his 
Son."  He  sent  him  forth  from  heaven.  He  was 
"born  of  a  woman"  in  conjunction  with  human  nature. 
He  was  "born  under  the  law;"  he  was  born  under  the 
Jewish  dispensation,  and  was  subject  to  the  institutions 
and  ordinances  of  the  ceremonial  law.  In  his  human 
nature  he  was  subjected  to  death.  Though  he  knew 
no  sin  himself;  yet  he  suffered  death  for  the  sins  of 
others. 

"The  only  begotten  Son,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Father,  he  hath  declared  him."  These  words  Christ 
spoke,  when  he  was  in  the  flesh.  When  he  made 
this  declaration,  did  he  design  to  convey  the  idea  that 
his  human  nature  was  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father, 
and  that  his  human  nature  had  declared  him?  Were 
these  the  primary  ideas  that  he  designed  to  convey 
by  this  declaration?  Does  the  appellation,  the  only 
begotten  Son,  in  this  text,  apply  primarily  to  the 
humanity  of  Christ?  Christ's  Divinity  is  in  more  inti- 
mate union  with  the  Father  than  his  humanity. 
When  he  is  said  to  be  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father, 
it  has  of  course  a  primary  reference  to  his  Divinity. 
Christ,  in  his  divine  nature  has  declared  the  Father 
much  more  than  he  has  in  his  human  nature.     When 


IN    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OF    GOD.  75 

he  is  said  to  declare  him,  it  has,  of  course,  a  primary 
reference  to  his  divine  nature. 

Some  communication  was  made  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment respecting  the  Father  and  the  Son.  If  the  rela- 
tionship, which  these  names  import,  actually  existed 
at  that  time,  why  was  it  not  more  fully  and  distinctly 
revealed?  For  the  same  reason,  undoubtedly,  for 
which  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  the  scheme 
of  redemption  were  not  so  fully  and  distinctly  revealed 
in  the  Old,  as  in  the  New  Testament.  God  revealed 
himself,  and  unfolded  his  gracious  designs  by  degrees. 
So  intimate  was  the  connexion  between  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity  and  the  plan  of  salvation,  that  the 
unfolding  of  the  one  would,  in  a  great  measure,  unfold 
the  other.  As  God  designed  not  to  make  a  full 
display  of  the  method  of  salvation  till  after  the  incar- 
nation of  his  Son,  he  of  course,  withheld  a  propor- 
tionate display  of  the  rfilationship  which  subsisted  in 
the  divine  nature.  As  the  economy  of  redemptioa 
depended  on  this  relationship,  it  appears  proper  that 
they  should  be  revealed  proportionably  and  together. 
In  the  Old  Testament  the  divine  nature  was  revealed 
by  many  names.  Among  others,  it  was  revealed  by 
the  names  Father  and  Son.  Did  not  a  relationship  then 
subsist  between  these  two,  which  was  a  proper  ground 
for  applying  to  them  these  relative  names?  Or,  were 
these  names  applied  to  them  only  in  view  of  a  rela- 
tionship, which  was  afterwards  to  subsist?  In  support 
of  the  affirmative  of  the  latter  question  it  is  argued, 
"We  say,  when  king  David  kept  his  father's  sheep. 
But  he  was  not  king  when  he  kept  them.  We  say, 
when  king  Solomon  was  born.  Yet  he  was  not  born 
king  nor  Solomon.  But  afterward  being  known  by 
both  the  office  and  the  name,  these  are  carried  back 
to  his  birth,  when  his  birth  is  spoken  of.  One  says, 
my  father  was  born  in  such  a  year.  He  does  not 
mean  that  he  was  born  his  father.''''  From  these 
premises  it  is  inferred  that  when  it  is  said,  "God  so 
loved  the   world  that  he  sent  his  only  begotten  Sou; 


76  IN    \VHAT   SENSE   CHRIST    IS    THE!   SON    OF    GOEfr 

God  sent  forth  his  Son;"  these  declarations  do  not 
import  that  Christ  was  son  before  he  was  sent;  but 
that  "the  plain  meaning  appears  to  be,  God  sent  his 
beloved  Logos,  the  darling  of  his  bosom.  Infinitely 
dear,  as  one  with  himself,  who  took  human  nature, 
and  was  manifested  as  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God." 
This  reasoning  does  not  appear  to  be  correct. 
Because  the  examples  adduced  are  not  parallel  with 
the  subject  under  consideration.  The  examples  take 
the  present  name,  relationship  and  office  of  persons, 
and  apply  the  same  to  them  at  a  past  period  of  their 
life.  But,  according  to  the  argument,  the  subject 
takes  the  Jutiire  naaie  of  Christ,  and  applies  it  to  him 
at  the  present  time.  If  it  be  proper  to  apply  the 
present  name  of  a  person  to  him  in  a  past  condition 
of  life,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  is  proper  to  apply 
the  future  name  of  a  person  to  him  in  his  present 
state.  The  premises  and  the  conclusion  are  not 
analogous;  and  of  course  the  argument  is  not  correct; 
and  the  inference  is  not  conclusive. 

In  the  divine  nature  the  same  relationship  always 
has  subsisted  and  always  will  subsist.  Among  creatures 
Hew  relationships  arise;  and  as  creatures  come  into 
existence  relationships  arise  between  them  and  their 
Creator.  But  there  is  no  change  in  the  divine  Being. 
If  there  be  ground  in  the  divine  nature  now  for 
calling  one  of  the  Trinity  Father  and  another  Son, 
there  always  was  ground  for  the  application  of  these 
relative  names.  If  one  of  the  Trinity  was  manifested 
to  the  world  as  Son  of  God,  there  was  ground  in  his 
nature  for  this  manifestation  before  he  appeared  in 
the  world.  His  coming  into  the  world  and  assuming 
human  nature  did  not  affect  his  relation  to  the  others 
pf  the  Trinity.  His  humanity  commenced  its  rela- 
tionship with  God,  but  his  Divinity  no  more  com- 
menced a  relationship  with  the  Father,  than  it 
commenced  existence.  Whatever  his  human  nature 
may  be  called,  it  does  not  affect  the  proper  name  of 
his  divine  nature. 


IN   WHAT   SENSE   CHRIST   IS    THE   SON   OF   GOD.  77 

There  is  a  certain  relationship  subsisting  between 
the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holj  Spirit.  The  ques- 
tion now  is,  whether  there  appears  to  be  ground  iu 
the  divine  nature  for  calHng  one  of  them  Son?  There 
is  no  dispute  that  one  is  called  Father.  He  is  not  so 
called  in  relation  to  creatures;  because  when  their 
Father  is  named,  it  is  God  without  the  distinction  of 
individuality.  When  one  of  the  Trinity  is  called 
Father,  it  is  in  relation  to  another  of  the  Trinity^  If 
it  be  proper  to  call  the  first  Father  m  relation  to  the 
second,  it  is  proper  to  call  the  second  Son  in  relation 
to  the  first. 

The  sfreat  love  of  God  toward  the  human  race  is 
argued  in  the  scriptures  from  his  not  sparing  his  own 
Son;  but  delivering  him  up  for  us  all.  If  God's  Son 
imports  no  more  than  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  God  did 
not  manifest  an  extraordinary  love  for  the  human 
race  in  giving  him  up  in  sacrifice.  If  a  prince 
should  subject  to  death  one  of  his  subjects  for  the 
sake  of  the  preservation  of  the  rest,  he  would  not 
display  an  extraordinary  love  for  them.  Any  prince 
would  do  the  same.  But  if,  for  this  purpose  he 
should  expose  to  death  his  own,  and  only  son,  who 
was  bone  of  his  bone,  and  flesh  of  his  flesh,  he  would 
give  decisive  evidence  of  his  exceedingly  great  love 
for  his  subjects.  If  God  has  exposed  one  of  the 
Trinity,  who  was  in  the  most  near  and  endearing  rela- 
tionship to  himself,  to  all  the  insolence  and  violence, 
which  an  ungrateful  world  could  offer  him,  it  cannot 
be  doubted  that  he  entertained  an  affectionate  regard 
for  his  human  rebellious  subjects.  Because  the 
sacrifice  of  his  Son  was  eflicacious  and  satisfactory, 
there  is  the  strongest  evidence  that  the  Son  was  of 
higher  nature  and  dignity  than  mere  humanity. 

The  sacred  scriptures  testify  that  God  sent  his  Son 
into  the  world.  This  mode  of  expression  conveys 
the  idea  that  Christ  was  his  Son,  when  he  sent  him: 
and  that  the  act  of  sendino;  him,  or  of  attachino; 
human  nature  to  him,  did  not  make  him  his  Son.     If 


78        IN    WHAT   SENSE    CHRIST    IS   THE   SON   OF   GOD, 

it  be  said  that  a  man  sends  his  son  on  business  it  is 
understood  that  the  child  is  reallj  a  son  at  the  time 
he  was  sent;  and  not  that  he  is  to  be  made  a  son  by 
any  future  act.  God's  sending  his  Son  into  the  world, 
signifies  his  sending  one  of"  the  Trinity  upon  earth 
among  mankind.  This  act  of  sending  the  Son,  can- 
not have  reference  to  his  introduction  to  the  duties  of 
his  office,  because  he  was  in  the  world  before  this 
time.  To  say  he  was  sent  into  the  world  after  he 
was  in  the  world,  would  not  be  a  correct  mode  of 
expression.  If  the  Son  whom  God  sent  into  the 
world,  was  one  of  the  Trinity,  there  was  the  same 
ground  for  calling  him  Son  before,  as  there  was  after 
he  was  sent.  No  new  relation  has  ever  been  formed 
between  them;  and  he  that  was  sent  from  heaven, 
has,  ever  since  the  apostasy,  stood  in  the  same  rela- 
tion to  the  human  race.  He  has  been  appointed  to 
no  new  office  since  that  time.  He  has  acted  in  no 
office  since  that  time,  which  would  appropriately  give 
him  the  name  Son. 

The  apostle  Paul  to  the  Hebrews,  has  given  infor- 
mation on  what  ground  he  received  this  name.  He 
obtained  by  inheritance,  or  he  hath  inherited,  (accord- 
ing to  the  original)  the  name  Son.  "Being  made  so 
much  better  than  the  angels,  as  he  hath  by  inherit- 
ance obtained,  or  he  hath  inherited  a  more  excellent 
name  than  they.  For  unto  which  of  the  angels  said 
he  at  any  time,  thou  art  my  Son,  this  day  have  I 
begotten  thee;  and  again,  I  will  be  to  him  a  Father, 
and  he  shall  be  to  me  a  Son."  The  apostle  gives  us 
to  understand  that  the  name,  which  was  better  than 
that  of  the  angels  was  Son;  and  he  expressly  says  he 
inherited  this  name.  Many  of  his  names  were  official. 
He  was  called  Messiah,  Jesus,  Lord,  Christ,  Media- 
tor, Redeemer.  These  names  he  did  not  inherit  in 
the  same  sense.  They  were  given  him  on  account 
of  the  offices,  which  he  sustained.  The  name  Son, 
he  inherited.  He  was  entitled  to  it  by  the  relation- 
.^hip,   which  subsisted  between  him  and  the  Father. 


IN    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OF    GOD.         79 

Angels  and  men  have  received  the  name  Son  of  God. 
But  they  did  not  inherit  it,  in  the  same  sense,  in  which 
he  did.  Christ  obtained  this  name  in  a  pecuhar  and 
distinguishing  sense,  in  a  sense,  in  which  no  creature 
ever  obtained  it.  This  is  an  evidence  that  he  is  in 
nearer  relationship  to  the  Father  than  any  created 
being.  If  Christ  was  called  Son,  only  on  account  of 
his  human  nature,  then  he  was  not  Son  in  any  higher 
sense  than  angels  and  men;  and  he  inherited  it  in  no 
other  manner  than  they.  But  the  apostle  reasons 
otherwise.  He  argues  Christ's  nearer  relationship  to 
the  Father,  and  his  superior  excellence  and  dignity 
from  this  fact,  that  he  inherited  a  more  excellent  name 
than  the  angels;  that  he  inherited  the  name  Son  of 
God. 

It  is  admitted  that  the  humanity  of  Christ  is  some- 
times called  Son  of  God.  The  scriptures  testify  that 
he  raised  his  Son  from  the  dead.  But  the  man  Christ 
Jesus  was  not  Son  of  God  in  a  higher  sense  than  Adam. 
When  Christ  is  called  God's  own  and  only  Son;  his 
dearly  beloved,  his  first  begotten,  his  only  begotten 
Son,  these  appellations  primarily  designate  his  divine 
nature.  If  either  of  these  appellations  are  applied  to 
his  humanity,  it  is  because  his  humanity  is  united  with 
him,  who  is  in  a  peculiar  sense  the  Son  of  God. 

If  the  sonship  of  Christ  originated  from  his  human- 
ity, then  the  Holy  Spirit  was  Father  of  the  Son. 
The  angel  declared  to  Joseph,  "that  which  is  con- 
ceived in  her,  (1.  e.  Mary,)  is  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 
When  Christ  addresses  his  Father,  he  does  not  address 
the  Holy  Spirit.  He  addresses  another  of  the  Trinity. 
Why  is  this,  if  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  Father  of  the 
Son.  When  Christ  addresses  his  Father,  he  addresses 
him,  who  sent  him  from  heaven  into  the  world,  and 
whom  he  obeys.  He  addresses  him  who  stands  first 
in  order  in  the  work  of  redemption. 

It  is  natural  to  inquire  why  two  of  the  Trinity  arc 
called  Father  and  Son?  It  is  not  supposable  that  finite 
minds  can  fully  understand  the  ground  of  relationship 


80        IN    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OF    GOD. 

in  the  divine  plurality.  It  appears  reasonable  that 
the  relationship  between  the  Father  and  the  Son  is 
not  literal;  that  there  is  not  that  priority  and  poste- 
riority of  existence,  and  those  claims  and  obligations, 
which  there  are  between  a  human  father  and  son. 
If  there  be  a  striking  analogy  in  several  prominent 
points  in  the  relationship  between  Christ  and  the 
Father,  and  between  a  human  son  and  his  father,  there 
is  sufficient  ground  for  calling  Christ  the  Son  of  the 
Father,  or  the  Son  of  God.  Such  analogy  appears; 
and  there  appears  to  be  just  ground  for  applying  to 
them  the  relative  names  Father  and  Son. 

The  relationship  between  God  and  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  is  not  a  sufficient  ground  for  calling  him 
literally^  Son  of  God.  The  origination  of  his  existence, 
and  the  origination  of  the  existence  of  a  human  son, 
in  the  ordinary  way,  were  too  different  to  be  a  ground 
for  calling  him,  by  this  name.  Yet  there  is  such  a 
resemblance  between  the  origination  of  the  two,  that 
figuratively  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  may,  with  propriety, 
be  called  Son  of  God.  If  this  appellation  be  applied 
figuratively  to  Christ,  either  In  his  human,  or  divine 
nature,  it  is  also  used  figuratively,  when  it  Is  applied 
to  him  without  the  distinction  of  natures. 

In  the  Old  Testament,  Christ,  in  relation  to  the 
Father,  is  called  Son.  He  is  called  by  this  name  in 
connexion  with  the  present,  the  past  and  future  tense. 
By  one  prophet  God  said  of  Christ,  "Thou  art  my 
Son;  he  shall  be  to  me  a  Son."  By  another  prophet 
he  said,  "I  called  my  Son  out  of  Egypt."  These  pas- 
sages appear  to  furnish  evidence  that  the  sonship  of 
Christ  may  be  traced  as  remotely,  at  least,  as  the  time 
when  these  declarations  were  made.  But  in  the  pro- 
phetic writuigs  tenses  are  not  always  used  literally. 
Revelation  was  much  more  obscurely  made  in  the  Old, 
than  in  tlie  New  Testament.  There  Is  much  greater 
reason  for  explaining  the  Old  Testament  by  the  New, 
than  there  is  for  explaining  the  New  Testament  by 
the  Old.     It  is  much  more  reasonable  to  explain  pro- 


IN    WHAT    SENSE    CHRIST    IS    THE    SON    OF    GOD.         81 

phecy  by  its  even(,  than  to  explain  an  event  by  its 
prophecy.  The  reahty  affords  more  correct  and 
definite  ideas  than  the  representation.  The  Sun  of 
Righteousness  sheds  more  copious  light  than  all  the 
shadows,  which  had  dimly  prefigured  him.  The  Old 
Testament,  like  the  lesser  light  in  the  firmament, 
rejleds  light  from  its  obscure  representations.  But  the 
New  Testament,  like  the  sun  in  the  heavens,  sheds  its 
own  native  splendor. 

Christ's  being  begotten,  first  begotten,  only  begot- 
ten, import  his  introduction  into  the  world;  his  intro- 
duction into  office;  his  reception  of  all  authority,  and 
his  resurrection  from  the  dead.  These  acts  did  not 
bring  him  into  a  new  relationship  with  the  Father. 
They  did  not  make  him  Son.  They  declared,  or 
manifested  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God.* 

^  If  there  be  distinctions  in  the  divine  nature,  it  is  not  incredible  that  names 
should  be  given  tliem  to  designate  their  relationship  with  each  other.  Whatever 
that  relationshii)  is,  it  cannot  be  expected  that  any  name,  or  names,  can  give  us 
a  full  conception  of  it.  There  is  nothing,  which  falls  under  our  notice,  which 
can  give  an  adequate  representation  of  those  distinctions,  which  constitute  the 
divine  plurality.  Hut  when  God  would  reveal  himself  to  us,  he  uses  various 
similitudes,  so  that  he  may,  in  some  measure,  bring  himself  down  to  our  con- 
ception. Wheti  he  would  express  the  near  relationship  between  himself,  the 
Creator,  and  ourselves  his  creatures,  he  calls  himself  Father,  and  us  his  chil- 
dren. W'hen  he  would  acquaint  us  with  his  knowledge  of  the  affairs  of  this 
world,  he  represents  himself,  as  if  he  possessed  organs  of  sense.  This  is  figura- 
tive language,  and  it  conveys  the  ideas,  which  were  designed.  If  he  would  reveal 
to  us  the  distinctions  and  relationships,  which  exist  in  his  nature,  he  must,  un- 
doubtedly, use  words  in  a  figurative  sense;  because  these  are  subjects,  different 
from  all  those,  with  which  we  are  acquainted.  When  he  reveals  himself  by  the 
relative  terras,  P'ather  and  Son,  these  distinctive  appellations  must  be  understood 
in  a  sense  not  inconsistent  with  the  divine  perfections.  Whatever  is  predicated 
of  the  Son  of  God,  as  it  respects  his  nature,  which  implies  literal  sonship,  literal 
generation,  derivation,  emanation,  or  procession,  appears  to  be  directly  against 
his  independence  and  his  eternal,  self-existence.  Or,  in  other  words,  it 
appears  to  be  directly  agaitist  his  divinity.  But  if  it  be  admitted  that  the  dis- 
tinctive terras.  Father  and  Son,  are  to  be  understood  in  a  figurative  sense,  this 
difficulty  ceases  to  exist. 

If  the  phrases.  Son  of  God,  first  begotten,  only  begotten,  first  born,  are  un- 
derstood figuratively,  they  may  be  consistently  applied  to  Christ,  in  his  divine 
nature,  unless  certain  texts  of  scriptuie,  render  tliis  application  inadmissible. 
So  far  from  this,  the  scriptures  apply  to  him  the  term  Son,  before  he  took  upon 
him  the  form  of  a  servant.  The  apostle,  in  his  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  speaking 
of  the  Son,  says,  "By  whom  also  he  made  the  world'i."  John,  in  his  Gospel, 
attributes  the  creation  of  the  world  to  the  Logos.  There  is  no  doubt  that  the 
Son  and  Logos  are  the  same;  and  it  appears  that  both  are  names  given  to  his 
divine  nature.  When  it  is  consiilned  that  oeveial  names  are  gHen  to  God  with- 
out a  view  of  the  distinctions  in  his  nature,  it  is  not  incredi'olc  that  more  names 
than  one  should  be  given  to  the  Son  of  God.  It  is  not  doubted  that  he  derived 
names  from  his  offices,  from  his  works,  and  from  his  union  with  human  nature. 
But  it  appears  that,  independently  of  these,  he  in/ieviied  by  ris^ht,  one  name, 
and  that  was  Sox. 

11 


DIVINE  NAMES  GIVEN  TO  CHRIST. 


Names,  in  the  sacred  scriptures,  are  frequently  signifi- 
cant of  the  nature  or  qualities  of  the  thing  or  being 
named.  W^hen  language  was  in  its  infancy,  names 
were  given  to  different  classes  of  beings,  whose  natural 
signification  would  distinguish  one  class  from  another. 
In  giving  names  to  individuals  of  a  species,  words  were 
used,  which  designated  some  characteristic  quality; 
or  some  remarkable  circumstance  attending  them. 
The  word  Adam,  which  was  used  for  a  name  of  the 
first  man,  signifies  ruddy,  earth,  man."-  His  name, 
therefore,  denoted  the  substance  and  one  of  its  quali- 
ties, of  which  his  body  was  formed.  The  name.  Eve, 
given  to  the  first  woman  signifies  "the  manifester, 
because  she  was,  or  was  to  be  the  mother  of  all  that 
live."  This  denotes  her  relative  situation  to  the 
human  family.  The  word  Moses  signifies  to  draw 
out.  This  name  was  given  to  a  child,  which  was 
hidden  among  the  flags  on  the  river's  brink;  and  this 
name  was  given  him  because  he  was  drawn  out  of  the 
water;  and  this  was  the  most  prominent  circumstance 
of  his  early  life.  The  name,  angel,  is  given  to  that 
elevated  order  of  spirits,  which  stand  around  God's 
throne,  and  receive  messages  from  him  to  this  world, 
because  the  original  word,  both  in  Hebrew  and  in 
Greek  signifies  messenger,  or  one  sent.  The  name 
characterizes  their  office.  Instances  of  significant 
names  in  the  sacred  scriptures  are  too  numerous  to 


DIVINE     NAMES     GIVEN    TO    CHRIST.  83 

be  quoted.  Those  already  cited  are  sufficient  for  the 
present  purpose. 

"The  Hebrew  names  of  God,  as  Jerome  (the  best 
Hebrecian  of  the  fathers)  observes  are  ten;  three 
come  from  being;  three  from  power;  three  from  gov- 
erning; one  from  excellence."  He  is  called  the  holy 
One,  which  name  denotes  his  moral  excellence.  As 
the  names  of  things,  of  persons,  and  of  God  in  the 
sacred  scriptures  are  significant,  it  is  not  improbable 
that  the  names  of  his  Son  are  significant;  that  they 
are  expressive  of  his  nature  and  attributes. 

"What  is  his  Son's  name,  if  thou  canst  tell?"  His 
name  is  God.  "In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and 
the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  Gorf." 
When  Thomas  saw  Christ  after  his  resurrection,  and 
had  full  evidence  that  it  was  he,  who  had  been  cruci- 
fied, he  exclaimed,  "My  Lord  and  ray  God."  In  the 
original  it  is  expressed  with  peculiar  emphasis,  and 
conveys  the  clearest  idea  of  his  belief  of  his  divinity, 
(d  -/.vi^iog  IJ.OV  nui  6"  ^eo?  (j.ov.^  Christ,  instead  of  upbraid- 
ing him  for  his  faith,  and  for  ascribing  to  him  this  di- 
vine title,  manifested  his  approbation.  "Of  whom,  as 
concerning  the  flesh  Christ  came,  who  is  over  all,  God 
blessed  forever."  All  the  forced  constructions  of  this 
text  have  not  destroyed  its  natural  and  most  obvious 
import.  The  Father  himself  bears  testimony  to  the 
same  truth.  ""Unto  the  Son  he  saith,  thy  throne,  O 
God,  is  forever  and  ever."  The  truth  of  this  witness 
cannot  safely  be  disputed.  God  said  to  Moses,  "be- 
hold 1  send  an  Angel  before  thee,  to  keep  thee  in  the 
way,  and  to  bring  thee  into  the  place,  which  I  have 
prepared.  Beware  of  him,  and  obey  his  voice,  pro- 
voke him  not;  for  he  will  not  pardon  your  transgres- 
sions; for  my  name  is  in  him."  This  Angel  was  Christ; 
and  God's  name  was  in  him.  He  is  therefore  called 
with  propriety  by  the  name,  God. 

Those,  who  deny  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  are  neces- 
sitated to  admit  that  he  is  called  by  this  divine  name; 
but  they  endeavor  to  evade  the  force  of  it   by  say- 


84  DIVINE    NAMES    GIVEN    TO    CHRIST. 

j'ng,  that  he  is  not  called  God  to  signify  his  divinity; 
but  only  to  express  his  high  offices,  and  his  delegated 
authority.  This  is  mere  assertion;  and  of  course  it 
requires  onlj-^  contradiction.  To  say  that  the  name 
God,  when  applied  to  the  Father,  signifies  divine  na- 
ture, but  when  applied  to  the  Son  signifies  something 
different,  is  asserting  the  very  thing  to  be  proved. 
There  is  as  much  evidence  that  Christ  is  divine,  from 
the  application  of  the  name  God  to  him,  as  there  is 
that  the  Father  is  divine  from  the  application  of  the 
same  name  to  himself.  If  a  certain  name,  attribute, 
or  work  will  not  prove  Christ's  divinity,  the  same 
name,  attribute  and  work  will  not  prove  the  Father's 
divinity.  It  ought  to  be  admitted  that  what  will  prove 
the  divine  nature  of  the  latter  will  also  prove  the 
divine  nature  of  the  former. 

Christ  is  called  in  the  sacred  scriptures  the  mighty 
God.  He  is  also  called  the  Almighty.  The  prophet 
Isaiah  speaking  of  the  Child,  which  would  be  born  of 
a  virgin,  says,  "his  name  shall  be  called  Wonderful, 
Counsellor,  the  Mighty  GolV  This  latter  title  is  given 
to  the  one  supreme  God  of  Israel.  If  this  name  has 
any  evidence  in  proof  of  liis  divine  nature,  it  has  equal 
evidence  in  proof  of  the  divine  nature  of  Christ.  In 
the  Apocalypse  it  is  written,  "I  am  Alpha  and  Omega, 
the  beginning  and  the  ending,  salth  the  Lord,  which 
is,  and  which  was,  and  which  is  to  come,  the  Jllmighly. 
It  has  been  objected  that  this  text  does  not  apply  to 
the  Son,  but  to  the  Father.  But  the  text,  viewed  in 
connexion  with  what  precedes  and  what  follows  it, 
was  evidently  spoken  by  Christ,  and  applied  to  himself. 

Another  name  given  to  Christ  is  everlasting  Father. 
When  the  word  Father  is  applied  to  Christ  it  is  not 
to  be  considered  of  the  same  import  as  it  is  when  ap- 
plied to  him,  whom  Christ  calls  his  Father,  and  we 
call  our  Father.  He  does  not  sustain  a  paternal  rela- 
tion to  himself,  nor  to  the  human  family.  The  word 
father  in  the  sacred  scriptures  has  dllFerent  significa- 
tions, and  it  is  used  in  various  senses.     It  signifies  one 


J)1VINE    NAMES    GIVEN    TO    CHRIST.  85 

who  has  children;  it  signifies  the  author  or  inventor  of 
a  thing;  an  instructor;  a  ruler,  a  desire.  In  all  these 
senses  Christ  may  be  called  a  Father,  either  figura- 
tively or  literally.  He  is  the  J^uthor  of"  salvation.  He 
is  an  Instructor.  He  taught  the  world  a  system  of  re- 
ligion. He  is  a  Rider,  He  is  frequently  styled  a  King. 
He  has  a  kingdom.  He  is  a  Desire.  He  is  called  the 
desire  of  nations.  He  is  much  to  be  desired;  for  he 
is  much  needed.  The  original  words,  translated  ever- 
lasting Father,  might  more  naturally  be  rendered, 
Father  of  eternity  (-|»^  '>'2'ii.')  This  naturally  expres- 
ses his  eternal  existence. 

Christ  is  called  King  of  glory,  Lord  of  glory,  and 
God  of  glory.  No  terms  could  be  selected,  which 
could  express  in  a  higher  degree  the  glory  of  Christ. 
The  glory  of  the  Father  cannot  be  represented  by 
language  in  a  brighter  light. 

Christ  is  styled  King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords. 
The  same  titles  are  applied  by  the  apostle  to  God  the 
Father.  "Who  is  the  blessed  and  only  Potentate,  the 
King  of  kings  and  Lord  of  lords."  These  names  imply 
that  the  Son  hath  dominion  over  the  highest  created 
powers,  and  that  his  authority  is  equal  to  that  of  the 
Father.  As  his  titles  are  the  same,  there  is  no  evi- 
dence from  this  source  that  his  authority  is  inferior. 

Another  name  given  to  Christ,  is  true  God.  "We 
are  in  him  that  is  true,  even  in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ. 
This  is  the  true  God  and  eternal  life."  At  the  time 
John  wrote  his  epistles  there  was  a  sect  which  denied 
the  divinity  of  the  Savior,  and  maintained  that  he  was 
merely  a  man.  Another  sect  denied  his  humanity.  In 
vieAV  of  these  heresies  it  appears  that  he  designed  to 
establish  two  points,  that  Jesus  had  come  in  the  flesh, 
and  that  he  was  truly  divine.  With  reference  to  those 
who  denied  the  humanity  of  Christ,  he  said,  "Hereby 
know  ye  the  Spirit  of  God;  every  spirit  that  confess- 
eth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh,  is  of  God; 
and  every  spirit,  that  confesscth  not  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  come  in  the  flesh,  is  not  of  God.    It  appears  impos- 


86  DIVINE   NAMES    GIVEN    TO    CHRIST. 

sible  that  language  could  be  used,  which  would  bo 
more  decidedly  against  the  two  prevailing  heresies  of 
his  day  than  this.  What  language  could  more  clearly 
convey  the  idea  of  the  real  Deity  of  the  Son  than  this 
declaration  of  John,  "this  is  the  true  God?"  Its  con- 
nexion is  so  intimate  with  what  is  said  of  the  Son,  that 
attempts  to  evade  its  force  are  vain.  Besides  the  ad- 
ditional appellation,  "eternal  life,"  is  peculiar  to  the 
Son. 

God,  to  distinguish  himself  from  all  the  gods  of  the 
heathen,  styled  himself  Jehovah.  This  name  denotes 
independent  existence.  The  Jews  had  this  name  in 
such  superstitious  veneration  that  they  would  not  pro- 
nounce it  in  private  or  public  worship;  nor  would  they 
pronounce  it  when  reading  the  scriptures.  The  ob- 
servations of  a  certain  Jewish  Rabbi  upon  the  word 
Jehovah  are  pertinent  and  forcible.  Treating  on  the 
names  or  attributes,  which  the  prophets  ascribe  to 
God,  he  observes,  "All  the  names  of  the  most  High, 
which  are  found  in  the  books  (i.  e.  of  the  bible)  are 
derived  from  his  actions;  and  that,  which  has  no  de- 
rivation in  it  is  only  one,  i.  e.  the  Tetragrammaton, 
which  is  appropriated  to  the  most  High  only;  there- 
fore it  is  called  a  declared  name,  which  signifieth  the 
very  essence  of  the  most  High  with  clear  demonstra- 
tion, in  which  there  is  no  equal  or  partner  with  him. 
But  the  rest  of  his  names,  i.  e.  Judge,  Mighty,  Right- 
eous, Merciful,  God,  &rc.  are  all  names,  which  declare 
the  eifects  and  derivation,  Sic.  But  the  Tetragramma- 
ton name  is  unknown  as  yet  as  to  its  certain  deriva- 
tion; and  therefore  it  is  attributed  to  him  only."  But 
even  this  name,  which  is  significant  of  the  divine  es- 
sence, is  applied  to  Christ.  The  prophet  Jeremiah, 
in  view  of  the  advent  of 'Christ,  observes,  "Behold  the 
days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  raise  unto  David 
a  righteous  Branch;  and  a  King  shall  reign  and  pros- 
per, and  shall  execute  judgment  and  justice  in  the  earth. 
In  his  days  Judah  shall  be  saved,  and  Israel  shall  dwell 
safely;  and  this  is  his  name  whereby  he  shall  be  called 


DIVINE    NAMES    GIVEN   TO    CHRIST.  H7 

Jehovah  our  righteousness."  This  prophecy  is  beHev- 
ed  generally  to  be  applied  to  Christ.  As  this  name 
is  expressive  of  divine  nature,  it  follows  that  Christ 
possesses  divine  nature,  or  the  name  was  wrongly  ap- 
plied. There  are  many  other  passages  in  which  Christ 
is  implicitly  called  Jehovah.  Was  it  not  Christ,  who 
held  intercourse  with  the  Israelites  in  their  departure 
from  Egypt,  and  in  the  wilderness?  Did  he  not  make 
himself  known  to  them  by  the  name  Jehovahj  and  did 
he  not  style  himself,  I  am? 

To  this  it  has  been  objected  that  the  name  Jeho- 
vah has  been  given  to  places  and  altars.  Abraham 
called  the  place  where  he  was  aboyt  to  offer  his  son 
Isaac  Jehovah-jireh,  the  Lord  will  see  or  provide. 
After  Moses  had  prevailed  in  battle  against  Araalek, 
by  the  special  interposition  of  divine  Providence,  he 
erected  an  altar  unto  the  Lord,  and  called  the  name 
of  it  Jehovah-nissi,  the  Lord,  my  banner.  After  Gideon 
had  seen  an  angel  and  had  holden  converse  with  the 
Lord,  he  built  an  altar  unto  the  Lord,  and  called  it 
Jehovah-shalom,  the  Lord  send  peace.  From  the 
application  of  this  divine  name  to  inanimate  things,  it 
is  inferred  by  some  that  the  application  of  it  to  Christ 
does  not  imply  his  divinity;  and  that  this  name  might 
appropriately  be  given  him,  if  he  were  but  a  mere 
man.  It  ought  to  be  considered  that  Avhen  the  name 
Jehovah  was  given  to  those  places,  it  was  used  with 
some  qualifying  addition;  it  was  used  not  to  express 
the  nature  of  the  place  or  thing,  but  to  express  some 
circumstance  which  was  signalized  by  divine  presence 
or  agency.  As  the  cases  fire  not  parallel,  the  objection 
loses  its  force. 

Another  significant  name  given  to  Christ  is  Imman- 
uel.  "Behold  a  virgin  shall  conceive  and  bear  a  son, 
and  shall  call  his  name  Immanuel."  This  prophecy 
was  fulfilled.  A  virgin  brought  forth  a  Son,  and  his 
name  was  Immanuel,  which  being  interpreted  is,  God 
with  us.  The  apostle  Paul  to  the  Corinthians  saith, 
"God  was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  woild  unto  himself.'" 


88  DIVINE    NAMES    GIVEN    TO    CHRIST. 

Christ  salth,  "the  Father  is  in  me."  No  language 
could  more  clearly  prove  that  divinity  was  united  to 
the  man,  Christ  Jesus.  But  it  is  objected  that  this 
divine  name  is  applied  to  Christ  in  no  other  sense  than 
divine  names  were  formerly  applied  to  places  and 
things.  It  has  been  said  that  when  divine  names  were 
given  to  places  and  things  they  did  not,  neither  were 
they  designed  to,  express  their  nature  or  qualities;  but 
they  expressed  the  manifestation  of  divine  presence, 
or  some  divine  interposition.  When  Jacob  had  seen 
the  vision  of  the  ladder  and  angels  ascending  and  de- 
scending, he  was  afraid  and  said,  "surely  the  Lord  is 
in  this  place."  From  this  circumstance  he  called  the 
name  of  the  place  Bethel,  which  signifies  house  of  God. 
After  Jacob  had  wrestled  with  a  man  and  prevailed 
and  obtained  his  blessing,  he  called  the  name  of  the 
place  Peniel;  and  he  gives  this  reason,  "I  have  seen 
God  face  to  face."  Peniel  signifies  face  of  God.  These 
distinguished  places  were  not  divine,  because  they  had 
received  names,  made  up  in  part  of  the  divine  name; 
neither  did  they  receive  these  names  because  they 
were  divine.  But  these  names  were  given  them 
because  God  was  there.  The  name  Immanuel  was 
not  given  to  the  child  of  Mary,  because  that  child  was 
divine,  (for  it  was  not)  but  because  God  was  there; 
because  the  divine  Son  was  in  the  child.  Allowing 
the  objection  to  have  all  its  force,  it  serves  to  prove 
that  divinity  was  united  with  the  humanity  of  Jesus 
Christ. 

The  name.  Lord  God  of  hosts,  is  applied  to  Christ. 
The  prophet,  adverting  to  the  wrestling  of  Jacob  with 
the  angel,  said,  "By  his  strength  he  had  power  with 
God;  yea,  he  had  power  over  the  Angel  and  prevailed; 
he  wept  and  made  supplication  unto  him;  he  found 
him  in  Bethel  and  there  he  spake  with  us.  Even  the 
Lord  God  of  hosts;  the  Lord  is  his  memorial."  The 
original  words  translated  Lord  God  signify  Jehovah 
God.  God  declared  to  Moses,  "this  is  my  name  forever, 
and  this  is  rov  memorial  unto  all  orenerations."     Jacob 


DIVINE   NAME3    GIVEN   TO    CHRIST. 


89 


called  the  Angel  with  whom  he  wrestled  God.     This 
Angel    was  undoubtedly    Christ.      Consequently    his 
name  is   Lord  God;  or  more   properly  Jehovah  God. 
Those,  who  deny  the  divinity  of  Christ  contend  that 
divine  names  have  been  frequentlv  given  to  men.  The 
Lord  said  unto  Moses,  see,  1  have  made  thee  a  god 
unto  Pharaoh.      When  God  gave  laws  to  Israel   he 
commanded  him   saying,  "Thou   shalt  not  revile  the 
gods,  nor  curse  the  ruler  of  thy  people."     The  apos- 
tle Paul  acknowledges  that  there  be  that  are  called 
gods,  for  there  be  lords  many  and  gods  many.      It  is 
true  some  divine  names  have  been  given  to   men  and 
things.     But  all  divine  names  have  not  been  given  to 
them.     The   unqualified    name    Jehovah   was   never 
given  to  any  man  or  place.  No  created  being  is  called 
in  the  scriptures   mighty  God,  Lord  God,  true   God, 
great  God,  God  over  all  blessed  forever  more.  Almigh- 
ty, Lord  of  glory.  King  of  kings.  Lord  of  lords.  Alpha 
and  Omega,  Lord  God  of  hosts.     But   these  names, 
without  any  qualification,  without  any  intimation  that 
they  are  to  be  understood  in  a  reduced  sense,  are 
given  to  Christ.  God,  by  his  apostle  saith  he  has  given 
him  a  name,  which  is  above  every  name.     If  no  other 
divine  names  were  given  to  Christ  but  those,  which 
have  been  given  to  men,  there  would  be  some  ground 
for  denying  that  his  names   prove  his  divinity.     But 
other  and  higher  titles  are  given  to  him.     The  same 
exalted  names,  which  were  given  to  the  one  God  of 
Israel  are  given  to  him.     If  these  names  do  any  thing 
toward  proving  the  divinity  of  Israel's  God,  they  do 
the  same  toward  proving  the  divinity  of  Christ.     If 
the  divine  names  have  no  meaning,  they  are  useless.  If 
they  have  an  unappropriate  meaning,  they  are  worse 
than  useless;  they  lead  to  error. 

"What  is  his  name  and  what  is  his  Son's  name?" 
The  manner  of  this  question  implies  that  it  is  equally 
difficult  to  give  a  fully  characteristic  name  to  one,  as 
to  the  other.  The  names  of  the  Father  and  the  Son 
are  significant  and  characteristic;  b?it  they  do  not  con- 
12 


90  DIVINE   NAMEE5   GIVEN    TO    CHRfST. 

vey  to  our  finite  minds  adequate  ideas  of  the  divine 
nature,  nor  of  the  mode  of  divme  subsistence.  God 
has  not  left  himself  without  witness,  nor  his  Son  with- 
out witness  that  he  is  God.  When  the  masficians 
wrought,  or  feigned  to  work  miracles  in  imitation  of 
those,  which  God  wrought  by  the  hand  of  Moses, 
God  was  pleased  to  give  a  visible  superiority  to  his 
own  miracles,  that  it  might  appear  that  the  power 
■was  of  God.  So  when  God  suffered  his  creatures  to  be 
called  by  divine  titles,  to  prevent  misapprehension  of 
the  nature  and  dignity  of  his  Son,  he  gave  him  decid- 
edly superior  titles;  he  gave  him  a  name,  which  is 
above  every  name.* 

*In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word 
was  (iod.  John  1:  1.  It  appears  that  one  design  of  John  in  writing  his  Gospel 
was  to  confute  the  heresies,  which  had  sprung  up  in  the  churches.  Tlie  most 
promiuenl  of  which  were  those  of  the  Uocetse,  and  the  Ebionites.  The  former 
believeil  the  divinity  of  Christ,  but  denied  his  humanity.  They  maintained  that 
he  had  a  body  only  in  appearance;  that  he  did  not  actually  suffer  and  die;  that 
he  only  seemed  to  do  those  things,  which  were  related  of  him.  The  latter  admitted 
the  history  of  Jesus  was  founded  on  reality;  but  they  denied  his  divinity.  "For 
the  most  part  looked  on  Jesus  Christ  as  a  mere  man,  born  of  Mary  and  her  bus- 
band,  though  a  man  of  a  most  excellent  character."  "The  opinions  of  the 
Docetse,  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  the  Corinthians  on  the  other,"  (who  were  nearly 
coincident  with  the  Ebionites)  concerniug  tlie  person  and  offices  of  Christ,  make 
it  probable  that  the  apostles  taught,  and  that  the  first  Christians  believed  Christ 
to  be  both  God  and  man.  For  if  the  Docet»  had  not  been  taught  the  divinity 
of  Christ,  they  had  no  temptation  to  deny  his  humanity.  And  if  the  Corinthians 
had  not  been  taught  the  humanity  of  Christ,  they  would  have  been  under  no 
necessity  of  denying  his  divinity."  (See  Mosheim's  Eccles.  hist.  Milner's  Chh. 
hist.  Macknight's  pref  to  the  1st  Epis.  of  John.)  In  opposition  to  these  here- 
sies  St.  John  positively  declared  that  the  Word  was  God;  and  that  the  Word 
was  made  flesh. 

I5y  some  it  is  denied  that  John  used  the  word  Logos  to  signify  Christ;  but 
admit,  tdat  if  the  Logos  were  Christ,  it  would  prove  his  divinity.  In  the  revela- 
tion ot  St.  John  he  is  called  the  Word  of  God.  There  is  a  peculiar  significancy 
in  calling  him  the  Word,  or  the  Word  of  Goil.  For  as  words  are  the  medium, 
of  conveying  thought,  so  Christ  was  the  med'um  of  conveying  the  will  of  God  to 
man.  When  the  Evangelist  asserts  that  the  Word  was  made  flesh,  it  appears 
to  be  proved  as  clearly  as  language  can  prove  it,  that  the  Word  was  Christ. 
When  he  asserts  that  this  Word  was  God,  it  appears  equally  clear  that  Christ  is 
truly  divine.  If  the  Evangelist  had  designed  to  express  his  divinity  in  an  inferior 
sense,  he  would  undoubtedly  have  employed  some  qualifying  lei'in.  But  as  he 
did  not,  we  are  not  authorized  to  make  the  addition.  The  absence  of  the  article 
before  Ss;?  in  this  place  does  not  affect  its  meaning. 

After  St.  John  had  represented  the  Word  existing  in  the  beginning;  existing 
with  God;  and  asserted  that  it  was  God,  he  adds,  "The  Word  was  made 
iycviro  or  became  flesh.  By  this  assertion  he  did  not  mean  that  the  nature  of 
the  Word  was  changed  into  the  nature  of  flesh.  He  undoubtedly  meant  that 
the  Word  appeared  in  the  likeness  of  flesh.  "God  sending  his  own  Son  in  the 
likeness  of  sinful  flesh — God  sent  forth  his  own  Son,  made  of  a  woman.  Who 
being  in  the  form  of  God, — took  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  was  made 
in  the  likeness  of  mei,"  The  phraseology  of  John,  and  also  of  the  apostle,  in 
the  quotations  just  made,  naturally  conveys  the  idea  that  the  Word  existed  sepa- 
rate from,  and  before  the  flesh. 


DIVINE   PJAMES    GIVEN   TO    CHRIST.  91 

The  translation,  "The  M''oid  was  flesh"  (see  the  Improved  Version  of  the  New 
Testament)  purporting  that  it  was  a  mere  man,  savors  more  of  a  preconceived 
opinion,  than  of  a  correct  knowledge  of  the  Greek.  Previous  to  this  declaration, 
the  Evangelist  had  used  the  verbxv  nine  times  and  uniformly  to  express  simple, 
past  existence.  He  had  used  the  verb  e-yivero  and  its  inflexions  six  times  to  convey 
the  idea  of  something  made  or  done.  If  he  had  designed  to  convey  no  other  idea 
than,  the  Word  ivas  flesh,  he  would  undoubtedly  have  used  the  verb  uv,  as  he  had 
done,  to  express  past  existence.  Oh  the  other  hand,  if  he  designed,  by  connect- 
ing the  terms,  the  Word  and  flesh  by  a  copula,  to  convey  an  idea  that  something 
was  made  or  done,  he  undoubtedly  would  have  used  the  same  verb,  which  he 
had  used  in  that  signification.  If,  after  having  used  this  verb  uniformly  in  one 
sense,  he  should,  without  giving  the  least  notice,  use  it  in  a  different  sense,  he 
would  mislead,  rather  than  rightly  direct  his  readers.  It  appears  therefore  that 
the  translation  in  our  Bible  is  correct.     The  Word  was  made  flesh. 

The  verb  tyniTO  in  the  New  Testament  is  sometimes  translated  Tvas.  But  it 
is  presumable  that  it  is  not  synonymous  with  iiv,  which  precisely  corresponds 
with  our  English  verb,  was.  In  John  1:6,  jj^sto  is  translated  was.  "There  was 
a  man  sent  from  God."  It  would  be  a  literal  translation,  and  agreeable  to  the 
translation  of  the  verb  in  many  otliei-  places  in  the  New  Testament,  to  render 
the  passage  thus,  it  came  to  pass  a  man  was  sent  from  God.  It  could  not  be  the 
design  of  the  Evangelist  in  using  the  verb  lyiviro  to  declare  the  existence  of  the 
man,  who  was  sent  from  God.  The  declaration  that  he  was  sent,  implied  his 
existence;  iymTo  is  translated  was,  in  Luke  '24:19,  "Concerning  Jesus  of  Naz- 
areth,  which  7yas  a  prophet."  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  this  was  the  lan- 
guage of  a  disciple  after  the  crucifixion;  that  he  was  disappointed  in  his  expecta- 
tions; that,  although  he  had  heard  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  he  did  not  under- 
stand it.  In  this  state  of  disappointment  and  grief;  not  knowing  with  whom  he 
was  travelling;  not  knowing  to  what  disgrace  and  danger  he  might  be  exposed,  if 
he  attributed  divinity  to  his  crucified  Master,  he  diffidently  and  cautiously  said. 
Of  iyiHTO  avup  jrpo^j^Tsxc.  Literally  translated  it  is,  who  was  made  a  man  prophet. 
"The  Word  was  made  flesh."  The  next  clause  illustrates  this.  "And  dwelt 
[itTKHvaio-iv)  among  us."  According  to  the  original  word  the  Logos  dwelt  as  in  a 
tent  among  us;  i.  e.  he  occupied  human  nature,  the  man  Christ  Jesus. 

Mi;  Lord  and  my  God.  Jolin  20:28.  These  words  of  Thomas,  addressed  to 
Christ,  appear  not  to  be  an  ellipsis,  as  some  have  maintained,  but  an  exclamation; 
an  exclamation  of  such  a  kind  that  it  amounts  to  a  confession  that  Christ  was  his 
Lord  and  God.  It  is  in  vain  to  object  that  Kvgto;  and  ©is?,  are  in  the  nominative 
case.  For  the  nominative  is  frequently  used  tor  the  vocative.  ^Vhen  Christ  on 
the   cross   addressed  the  Father,   he   addressed    him  in    the  nominative   case, 

0  B-io;  juov,  0  dm/J-ou,  as  it  is  recorded  by  St.  Mark.  The  LXX  use  the  nominative 
for  the  vocative.  The  great  advantage  of  considering  the  words  of  Thomas  an 
ellipsis  is,  that  people  may  complete  the    sentence  so  as  to  favor  their  owa 

system.  ,    j,    ,  r,i    • 

Whose  are  the  fathers,  and  ofiuhom  as  concerning  the  flesh  Christ  came,  -who 
is  over  all,  God  blessed  for  ever.  Rom.  9:5.  If  the  received  text  be  genuine;  if 
the  construction  and  pointing  of  this  passage  be  correct,  it  otters  its  aid  to  prove 
the  doctrine  of  Clirist's  divinity.  He  descended  from  the  fathers,  according-  to 
the  flesh;  he  "was  made,  (or  born)  of  the  seed  of  David,  according  to  the  flesh." 
This  mode  of  expression  intimates  that  he  had  another  nature,  according  to 
which  he  did  not  descend  from  the  fathers,  or  from  the  seed  of  David.  Who 
in  this  passage,  relates  to  Christ;  and  he  is  over,  or  above,  all.  God  is  in  appo- 
sition with  Christ.  The  term  blessed,  which  is  applied  to  the  Father,  is  applied 
to  him. 

But  this  text  has  suffered  the  same  fate  with  many  others,  which  teach  the 
same  doctrine.  It  is  maintained  that  many  copies  want  6£oc.  "Some,  there- 
fore, may  have  inferred,  that  this  text  cannot  fairly  be  adduced  in  support  of  the 
Trinitarian  scheme;  and  yet  the  received  reading  is  confirmed  by  all  the  manu- 
scripts, which  have  been  hitherto  collated;  by  all  the  ancient  versions;  and  by 
all  the  fathers,  exeept  Cyprian,  in  the  printed  copies,  and  ;.lso  Hilary  and  Leo, 
who,  according  to  Griesbach,  ha»e  each  of  them  once  referred  to  this  text  with- 
out noticing  fijoc.     Whence  the  notion  arose  that  6io;  is  wanting  in    many  MSS. 

1  am  not  able  to  discover.  There  is  scarcely  a  verse  in  the  New  Testament,  in 
which  ancient  authorities  more  nearly  agree."    (Middleton  on   the  Greek  Ai- 


92  DIVINE   NAMES    GIVEN   TO    CHRIST* 

tide.)  The  passage  under  consideration  has  been  transposed  and  pointed  in  such 
a  manner  that  it  imports  a  doxology  to  the  Father.  But  this  transposition  oft'ends 
against  the  idiom  of  the  Greek  language;  against  the  usage  of  the  LXX.  and  of 
the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,     ^^ee  Middleton   in  loco) 

Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever.  By  some  it  is  supiiosed  that  the 
Psahu,  from  which  the  apostle  quoted  this  passage,  was  composed  in  celcbratioa 
of  Solomon's  marriage  with  Pharaoh's  daughter.  This  Psalm  is  entitled,  "A 
song  of  loves."  It  is  not  probable  that  David  would  have  composed  a  song  upon 
his  son's  love  for  strange  Moraen;  women,  with  whom  he  was  forbidden  to  have 
connexion.  If  he  had  made  this  the  subject  of  his  song,  he  could  iiardly  have 
said,  "My  heart  is  inditing  &  geod  matter."  In  this  view  of  his  son,  he  would  uot 
probably  have  addressed  him  by  the  title,  "O  God."  Besides,  Solomon's  king- 
dom lasted  but  forty  years.  It  could  not,  therefore,  be  said  to  be  "for  ever  and 
ever."  It  was  permanent  but  partially  in  the  line  of  his  posterity;  for  ten  tribes 
revolted  from  his  son,  and  did  not  return.  In  view  of  his  strange  loves,  which 
were  prohibited  by  divine  authority,  the  Psalmist  would  not  probably  have  said, 
"thou  hast  loved  righteousness  and  hated  iniquity." 

The  Psalm  was  undoubtedly  applied  to  the  Messiah;  for  It  appears  to  be  ap- 
plicable only  to  him.  The  quotation,  which  the  apostle  makes  from  it,  he  applies 
to  the  Son.  In  the  beginning  of  his  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  he  contrasts  the 
Son  with  the  angels;  and  to  give  him  the  preference,  to  give  him  an  infinite 
superiority,  he  applies  to  him  a  part  of  the  45th  Psalm.  "Unto  the  Son  he 
saith,  thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever."  Thtre  is  no  danger  in  apply- 
ing this  declaration  as  the  apostle  applied  it,  notwithstanding  the  ingenious  crili- 
eisms  of  the  learned. 

Some  critics  have  given  to  the  passage  under  consideration  a  translation,  essen- 
tially different  from  our  English  version.  "God  is  thy  throne  for  ever  and  ever. 
The  everlasting  God  is  thy  throne."  But  neither  the  scope  of  the  apostle's 
discourse,  nor  the  ])hraseology,  which  he  used,  favors  this  translation.  He  was 
setting  forth  the  superior  excellence  and  dignity  of  the  Son.  After  represent- 
ing angels  as  servants,  it  was  necessary,  to  make  the  contrast,  to  represent  the 
Son  having  authority.  But  if  he  designed  to  attribute  to  him  only  a  limited  or  del- 
egated authority;  that  God,  not  himself,  supported  his  throne,  where  would  be 
the  superiority  of  Christ  above  them;  for  they  have  a  limited,  a  delegated  au- 
thority? When  it  is  brought  into  one  view,  that  the  Son  hath  inherited  a  more 
excellent  name  than  they;  that  the  angels  of  God  are  commanded  to  worship 
him;  that  in  the  beginning  he  laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth,  and  that  the 
heavens  are  the  works  of  Iiis  hands;  that  he  is  the  same,  and  that  his  years  shall 
not  fail,  it  would  be  an  unhappy  descent  in  the  descriptian  to  assign  him  a  throne, 
-which  he  could  not  support  himself;  a  throne,  which  ke  did  not  inherit,  which 
he  did  not  occupy  by  right. 

'O  flsoc  being  in  the  nominative  case  does  not  justify  the  improved  version  of 
the  text.  For  the  LXX  often  use  the  nominative  for  the  vocative;  and  it  was 
from  them  the  apostle  made  the  quotation.  The  Atticks  used  the  same  manner 
of  writing.  If  throne  was  the  predicate  of  the  verb,  it  would,  according  to  the 
rules  of  Greek  criticism,  want  the  article.  But  as  it  has  the  article  prefixed, 
there  is  evidence  that  it  is  the  subject  of  the  verb;  and  that  the  common  English 
Version  is  correct.  The  application  of  this  text  to  Solomon;  the  unnatural 
transposition  of  its  parts;  and  the  unfounded  criticisms,  which  have  been  made 
upon  it,  give  evidence  that  the  cause  is  desperate,  whicii  requires  such  means 
for  its  support. 

And  we  know  that  the  Son  of  God  is  come,  and  hath  given  us  an  understanding, 
that  we  may  know  him  that  is  true;  and  we  are  in  him  that  is  true,  even  in  his 
Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  true  God,  and  eternal  life;  I  John  5:20.  The 
most  natural  reference  of  the  pronoun  this,  is  to  Jesus  Christ  in  the  preceding 
sentence.  It  is  a  general  rule  that  the  demonstrative  pronoun  refers  to  th& 
nearest  antecedent.  But  there  is  sometimes  a  departure  from  this  rule  when  a 
more  remote  aiilecedetit  is  the  principal  subject;  and  a  reference  to  it  is  so  visible 
in  the  sense  that  it  occasions  no  ambiguity.  But  this  exception  does  not  apply- 
to  the  text  under  consideration.  The  Son  of  God  is  the  leading  and  most  prom- 
inent subject.  Neither  the  sense,  nor  the  nature  of  tlie  subject  would  warrant  a 
departure  from  the  general  rule  in  this  instance,  Ui^less  it  be  £rsi  assumed  th^t 
Jesus  Christ  is  not  divine,  the  very  point  to  be  proved. 


DIVINE   NAMES    GIVEN    TO    CHRIST.  93 

The  terms  used  in  the  text,  viewed  in  connexion  with  olher  parts  of  llie  Epis- 
tle, favor  ihe  opinion  that  they  are  applied  to  the  Son  of  God  Thei-e  is  no 
small  degree  of  evidence  that  the  phrase,  him  that  is  true,  signifies  Clirist.  At 
the  time  John  wrote,  there  were  false  teachers.  They  represented  Christ  very 
differently  from  what  he  really  was  I'liese  he  calls  antichrist;  and  gives  a  cau- 
tion to  try  their  spirit.  After  describing  the  errors  which  then  prevailed,  and 
shewing  how  tliey  might  be  detected,  he  observed  at  the  close  of  his  first  Epistle, 
that  Jesus  Christ  had  come;  that  he  had  given  them  an  understanding  (Jiavcia.) 
i.  e.  knowledge,  or  the  means  of  knowing  him  that  is  true;  of  diitingnishnig  the 
true  Christ  from  false  ones;  that  by  signs  and  wonders,  by  doctrine  and  life,  he 
gave  such  evidence  that  he  was  the  true  Messiah  that  they  needed  not  to  be  de- 
ceived. "We  are  m  A/w  that  is  true  "  This  manner  of  expression  is  applied 
elsewhere  to  Christ.  "If  any  man  be  iii  Christ,  he  is  a  new  creature."  "Put 
ye  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  I'he  figure  of  the  vine  and  the  branches  implies 
that  the  members  of  Clirist  are  in  him  Besiiles,  Jesus  applies  to  himself  the 
terras  true  and  truth.  The  additional  clause,  "in  his  Son  Jesus  Christ,"  appears 
to  be  explanatory  of  the  two  preceding,  viz.  "in  him  that  is  true." 

"This  is  the  true  God  and  eternal  life."  Life  and  eternal  life  are  titles  often 
given  to  Christ,  'n  the  beginning  of  the  Epistle  John  calls  him  "the  Word  of 
life,  the  Life,  eternal  Life  "  Wlien  it  is  considered  that  he  apPlits  this  title  to 
iiim  in  the  beginning  of  his  letter,  it  is  presumable,  at  least,  that  at  the  close,  he 
applies  the  same  title  to  the  same  personage.  Of  Christ  it  is  said,  "In  him  was 
life,  and  the  Life  was  the  light  of  men.  I  am  the  resurrection  and  the  Life. 
God  hath  given  to  us  eternal  Life;  and  this  Life  is  in  his  Son."  These  eviden- 
ces appear  to  be  conclusive  that  the  title,  true  God  in  the  text,  is  applied  to  the 
Son. 

B'  hold,  a  virgin  shall  conceive,  and  bear  a  Son,  and  shall  call  his  name  Im- 
mamiel;  Isaiah  7:14.  Perhaps  this  prophecy  in  its  primary  ap[)lie!itioii  was 
fulfilled  soon  after  its  delivery  by  a  person,  born  in  an  extraordinary  manner; 
who  delivered  Judah  from  his  threatening  enemies;  and,  for  the  remarkable  in- 
terposition of  divine  Providence  attending  him,  was  called  Immannel.  If  such 
an  ajjplication  of  the  text  be  correct,  it  is  admitted  that  the  name  is  appropriate; 
that  (iod  was  with  his  people  by  cjuallfying  him  for  their  deliverance.  But  tiiis 
concession  does  not  militate  against  the  application  of  this  prophecy  in  a  secon- 
dary and  higher  sense.  The  successor  of  Vloses  was  called  Joshua;  (ihe  same 
in  the  original  as  Jesus;)  and  the  nanie  was  appropriate.  But  who  doubts  that 
the  name  Jesus,  when  given  to  the  Son  of  God,  is  of  a  higher  and  more  impor- 
tant meaning!" 

There  is  evidence  that  the  prophecy,  under  consideration,  was  ultimately 
applied  to  Christ,  becaus<'  St.  Matthew,  in  giving  the  history  of  his  nativity  ap- 
plies it  to  him.  "Now  all  this  was  done,"  (says  the  Evangelist)  "that  it  might 
be  fulfilled,  which  was  spoken  of  the  Lord  by  the  prophet,  saying.  Behold  a 
virgin  shall  be  with  child,  and  shall  bring  forth  a  son,  and  shall  call  his  name 
Emmanuel,  which,  being  interpreted,  is,  God  with  us."  Not  a  little  exertion 
lias  been  used  to  shew  that  this  part  of  St.  Matthew's  account  of  Christ  is  spuri- 
ous But  as  no  proof  hus  been  produced  to  this  eifect,  it  is  not  presumptuous  to 
ofter  it  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  divinity.  It  is  a  matter  of  surprise 
that  texts  to  this  effect  should,  more  than  any  others,  be  charged  with  spurious- 
ness,  with  incorrect  readings  and  incorrect  versions.  Should  the  charge  be  sup. 
ported  against  St.  .Matthew,  a  similar  difliculty  will  be  found  in  St.  Luke's  gos- 
pel. He  states  the  miraculous  conception  of  Mary  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  Though 
he  does  not  sav  that  this  event  is  a  fulfilment  of  the  prophet's  prediction;  yet, 
according  to  his  account  of  the  matter,  it  was  no  less  a  fulfilment,  than  if  he  had 
declared  it  to  be  so.  If  God  was  with  his  people,  when  he  sent  them  deliverers, 
who  rescued  them  from  temporal  evils,  more  specially  was  he  with  them  when 
lie  united  himself  in  a  peculiar  manner  with  human  nature,  and  delivered  them 
by  his  own  hand  from  spiritual  enemies,  from  the  bondage  of  sin. 

Looking-  for  that  blessed  hope,  and  the  glorious  appearing  of  the  great  God 
and  our  Savior  Jesus  Christ;  I'itus  2:1.3.  Through  the  righteousness  of  God 
and  our  Savior  Jesus  Christ;  2  Peter  1:1.  There  are  several  other  passages  in 
the  Epistles,  in  which  the  name  God  and  Jesus  Clirist  have  a  similar  i  onnexion. 
If  the  second  noun  (Savior)  were  not  in  apposition  with  the  first  (God)  or  an 
attributive  of  the  same  article,  it  would  have  an  jirticle  before  itself.  But  as  it 
has  not,  it  is  inferred  that  it  is  a  predicate  of  the  article,  which   stands  before 


94  DIVINE   NAMES   GIVEN   TO   CHRIST. 

God;  and  of  course  the  title.  Great  God,  is  given  in  this  text  to  Jesus  Christ. 
The  rules  of  Greek  criticism  are  so  well  established  that  this  conclusion  is 
drawn  with  confidence.  See  Middleton  on  the  Greek  Article.  In  the  second 
text  quoted,  there  appears  to  be  additional  evidence  that  God  and  the  Savior 
Jesus  Christ  are  the  same.  Peter  directs  his  salutation  to  those,  who  had  ob- 
tained like  precious  faith  with  themselves  through  the  righteousness  of  God. 
Righteousness  in  this  sense  and  application  is  repeatedly  attributed  to  Christ; 
but  it  is  presumed  that  it  is  not  so  applied  to  the  Father  exclusively.  It  is 
through  the  righteousness,  t.  e.  the  obedience  and  sufferings  of  Christ  that  people 
receive  any  Christian  grace. 


DIVINE  ATTRIBUTES  ASCRIBED  TO  CHRIST. 


Who  belng....the  express  image  of  his  person.  Heb. 
1:3.  This  is  predicted  of  the  Son,  Jesus  Christ,  in 
relation  to  God  the  Father.  The  original  is  some- 
what more  expressive.  It  signifies  that  he  is  the 
character  of  his  (i.  e.  God's)  substance. 

AH  that  is  known  of  the  nature  of  a  thing  is  by  its 
qualities.  One  class  of  beings  is  distinguished  from 
another  by  its  different  properties.  Human  nature  is 
known  by  its  distinguishing  qualities.  Divine  nature 
is  known  in  the  same  manner.  What  has  human  qual- 
ities is  human  nature;  and  what  has  divine  qualities 
is  divine  nature.  If  it  can  be  shewn  that  Jesus  Christ 
possesses  divine  qualities,  it  consequently  follows  that 
he  possesses  divine  nature. 

Although  Christ  possessed  human  nature;  yet  there 
is  evidence  from  the  inspired  writings  that  he  posses-^ed 
a  nature,  which  distinguished  him  from  a  mere  man. 
Paul,  in  his  salutation  to  the  Galafians,  begins  thus: 
"Paul,  an  apostle,  not  of  mefi,  neither  by  man,  but  by 
Jesus  Christ.^''  He  inquires,  "Do  1  seek  to  please 
men?  for  if  I  yet  pleased  men,  1  should  not  be  the 
servant  of  Christ.  But  1  certify  you,  brethren,  that 
the  gospel  which  was  preached  of  me,  is  not  after 
man;  for  I  neither  received  it  of  man,  neither  was  I 
taught  it,  but  by  the  revelation  of /e.s?/5  Clirist.^^  The 
apostle  makes  a  plain  distinction  between  Christ  and 
a  man  or  men.  He  is  therefore  understood  ascribing 
to  him  a  nature,  which  ihcv  had  not. 


96  DIVINE    ATTRIBUTES    ASCRIBED    TO    CHRIS"!'. 

The  sacred  scriptures  ascribe  eternity  to  the  Lord 
Jesus.  After  the  apostasy  God  held  intercourse  with 
man,  through  the  medium  of  his  Son.  The  voice  of 
the  Lord  God,  whom  Adam  heard  walking  in  the 
garden,  was  the  Son.  It  was  the  Son,  who  njade  the 
covenant  with  Abraham.  It  was  the  Son,  who  ap- 
peared unto  Jacob;  changed  his  name,  and  blessed 
him.  It  was  the  Son,  who  led  Israel  out  of  Egypt; 
conducted  them  through  the  Red  Sea;  guided  and 
supported  them  in  the  wilderness;  and  led  them  to 
the  land  of  promise.  All  the  divine  appearances  and 
communications,  which  are  mentioned  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, were  made  by  the  Son  of  God.  If  these 
exhibitions  of  himself  do  not  prove  his  eternity,  they 
prove  that  he  had  existence  before  he  was  conceived 
by  his  mother  Mary.  It  proves  that  he  was  more 
than  mere  humanity. 

Christ  saith  of  himself,  '•^before  Abraham  was  I  am.'''' 
He  prayed  to  the  Father,  saying,  "Glorify  thou  me 
with  thine  ownself,  with  the  glory  which  I  had  with 
thee,  before  the  world  was^  Solomon,  personifying 
Wisdom,  which  is  generally  understood  to  be  Christ, 
says,  "The  Lord  possessed  me  in  the  beginning  of  his 
way,  before  his  works  of  old.  I  was  set  up  from 
everlasting,  from  the  beginning,  or  ever  the  earth  was. 
Then  I  was  by  him,  as  one  brought  up  with  him." 
In  these  texts  is  conveyed  the  idea  not  only  of  his 
pre-existence,  but  also  of  his  eternal  existence.  His 
being  by  him,  as  one  brought  up  with  him,  easily  con- 
veys the  idea  of  two,  who  had  always  lived  together; 
and  upon  equal  terms.  When  Christ  appeared  unto 
John  in  Patmos,  he  styled  himself,  "Alpha  and  Omega, 
the  beginning  and  the  ending,  which  is,  and  which  was, 
and  which  is  to  come,  the  first  and  the  last."  This 
title  was  given  to  God  by  his  prophet;  and  if  it  is  an 
evidence  of  his  eternal  existence,  it  aifords  the  same 
evidence  of  the  eternal  existence  of  the  Son  Jesus 
Christ.  The  prophet,  in  view  of  the  birth  of  Christ, 
makes  this  address  to  the  place  of  his  nativity.   "Thou 


DIVINE   ATTRIBUTES    ASCRIBED    TO    CHRIST.  97 

Bethlehem  Ephratah,  though  thou  be  little  among 
the  thousands  of  Judah,  yet  out  of  thee  shall  he 
come  forth  unto  me,  that  is  to  be  Ruler  in  Israel, 
whose  goings  forth  have  heen  from  of  old^  from  ever- 
lasting:^ This  text  is  clearly  applied  to  Christ.  It 
mentions  his  coming  forth,  which  would  be  at  his 
birth.  It  mentions  also  his  goings  forth,  which  had 
been  of  old,  from  everlasting.  This  reduplication  of 
time,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  Hebrew  language, 
clearly  and  forcibly  conveys  the  idea  of  his  eternity. 
Christ  is  the  express  image,  or  character  of  the  divine 
nature,  or  substance.  His  nature  is,  of  course,  divine, 
and  his  attributes  are  divine.  It  is  absurd  to  suppose 
that  the  character  of  divinity  should  be  ascribed  to 
Christ,  and  he  be  not  divine;  or  that  he  should  pos- 
sess some  divine  attributes,  and  not  others.  If  he  be 
the  character  of  divine  existence,  he  is  of  course 
eternal. 

The  title  Jehovah,  is  repeatedly  given  to  Christ. 
This  name  signifies  self-existence.  What  is  self-exist- 
ent had  no  cause  nor  origin  of  its  existence;  and  of 
course  must  always  have  existed.  If  the  name  Jeho- 
vah is  rightly  applied  to  Christ,  it  implies  his  eternal 
existence. 

The  sacred  scriptures  ascribe  immutability  to 
Christ.  This  is  a  divine  attribute.  Whatever  has 
been  created  is  subject  to  change  by  the  same  power, 
which  created  it.  But  he,  that  is  not  subject  to 
change,  exists  without  a  cause,  and  of  course  is  divine. 
The  apostle  Paul  to  the  Hebrews  is  clear  and  deci- 
sive on  this  point.  "Thou  Lord  in  the  beginning,  hast 
laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth;  and  the  heavens  are 
the  works  of  thine  hands.  They  shall  perish,  but 
thou  remainest;  and  they  all  shall  wax  old  as  doth  a 
garment;  and  as  a  vesture  shalt  thou  fold  them  up, 
and  they  shall  be  changed;  but  thou  art  the  same,  and 
thy  years  shall  not  fail.''''  The  apostle  made  this  ad- 
dress to  Christ;  and  it  as  decisively  proves  his  divinity, 
as  the  same  description  proves  the  divinity  of  the  one 
13 


&8  DIVINE   ATTRIBUTES    ASCRIBED   TO    CHRIST. 

(rue  God,  when  applied  to  him  by  the  Psalmist.  Paul 
to  the  Hebrews  says,  "Jesus  Christ,  the  same  yester- 
day, to-day,  and  for  ever."  This  mode  of  speaking, 
expresses  duration  past,  the  present  time,  and  dura- 
tion to  come.  As  he  is  the  same^  in  the  past,  present, 
and  future  time,  he  changeth  not. 

Christ  has  been  manifested  to  the  world  in  various 
manners.  To  Jacob  he  appeared  in  the  form  of  a 
man.  To  Moses  he  appeared  in,  or  in  the  likeness 
of,  a  burning  bush.  To  the  Israelites  he  appeared  in, 
or  in  the  form  of,  a  pillar  of  cloud,  and  a  pillar  of  fire. 
After  his  incarnation  he  appeared  in  human  form,  in 
the  form  of  a  servant.  Since  his  resurrection  he  is 
united  to  a  spiritual  body;  and  is  seated  on  the  right 
hand  of  divine  Mijesty.  His  appearances  were  differ- 
ent at  different  times;  and  his  state  of  humiliation 
appeared  very  different  from  his  state  of  exaltation. 
But  these  appearances  made  no  alteration  in  his  nature. 
He  was  no  less  God  in  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  than  he 
was  on  the  right  hand  of  God  the  Father.  His  power 
was  not  less  when  he  was  in  the  hands  of  men,  and 
was  condemned,  or  when, his  body  was  under  the 
dominion  of  death,  than  it  was  when  he  created  the 
world.  All  the  adventitious  circumstances,  which 
attended  him  while  he  was  upon  earth,  produced  no 
change  in  his  nature  or  attributes. 

The  scriptures  attribute  omnipresence  to  Christ. 
The  Lord  Jesus,  when  he  was  upon  earth,  said,  "No 
man  hath  ascended  up  to  heaven,  but  he  that  came 
down  from  heaven,  even  the  Son  of  man,  which  is 
in  heaven."  This  implies  that  he  was  in  heaven  at 
the  same  time  he  was  upon  earth.  After  Christ  was 
received  up  into  heaven,  his  apostles  "went  forth  and 
preached  every  where,  the  Lord  working  with  them.^^ 
At  this  time  he  sat  on  the  right  hand  of  God.  But 
he  was  present  with  them,  otherwise  he  could  not 
have  wrought  with  them.  "Where  two  or  three  are 
met  together  in  my  name,  (said  Christ)  there  am  I  in 
the  midst  of  thena."     Jesus  said  unto   his  disciples, 


DIVINE    ATTRIBUTES    ASCRIBED   TO   CHRIST.  09 

*'Lo,  I  am  with  jou  alwaj,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world."  These  are  individual  instances  of  Christ's 
presence  on  earth,  while  he  is  in  heaven.  If  these 
instances  do  not  prove  his  universal  presence,  it  proves 
his  presence  to  a  great  extent.  If  his  presence  is 
extended  to  a  great  proportion  of  his  creatures,  there 
is  no  reason  why  it  should  not  be  extended  to  all.  By 
hira  all  things  were  created,  and  by  him  all  things 
consist,  i.  e.  are  supported.  His  presence  must  have 
been  as  extensive  as  his  works;  and  it  must  now  be 
as  extensive  as  that  influence  of  his,  which  upholds  all 
things.  It  is  true,  all  this  only  proves  his  presence  to 
be  as  extensive  as  the  works  of  creation.  The  scrip- 
tures cannot  prove  the  presence  of  God  the  Father 
to  be  more  extensive.  It  is  not  important  to  prove 
that  divine  presence  is  where  nothing  feels  its  influ- 
ence, nor  beholds  its  glory. 

There  is  abundant  evidence  from  scripture  that 
Christ  is  omniscient.  The  apostle  Paul  says  he  is 
before  all  things.  Whether  he  be  before  all  things  in 
respect  to  duration  or  dignity,  or  in  respect  to  both, 
he  undoubtedly  has  a  capacity  for  this  extent  of  knowl- 
edge. As  he  made  all  things,  he  perfectly  knows 
their  natures,  and  the  eifects,  which  would  arise  from 
any  particular  combination  of  things.  As  he  is  omni- 
present he  knows  all  events,  which  take  place.  Noth- 
ing is  concealed  from  his  view.  The  word  of  inspira- 
tion confirms  this  sentiment.  His  disciples  said  unto 
him,  "Now  we  are  sure  that  thou  knowest  all  things, 
and  needest  not  that  any  man  should  ask  thee."  When 
Peter  was  interrogated  concerning  his  love  toward 
his  divine  Master,  he  replied,  "Lord,  thou  knowest  all 
things.''''  Jesus  did  not  commit  himself  unto  them; 
because  he  knew  all  men;  and  needed  not  that  any 
should  testify  of  man;  for  he  knew  what  was  in  man. 
Jesus  knew  from  the  beginning,  who  they  were,  that 
believed  not.  When  prayer  was  made  to  the  Lord 
Jesus  for  direction  in  filling  a  place  among  the  apostles, 
which  had  been  vacated  by  Judas,  he  was  addressed 


100  DIVINE    ATTRIBUTES    ASCRIBED    TO    CHRIST. 

thus:  "Lord,  which  knowest  the  hearts  oi  all  men,  shew 
whether  of  these  two  thou  hast  chosen."  "The 
Word  of  God  is  quick  and  powerful,  and  sharper 
than  any  two-edged  sword,  piercing  even  to  the  divid- 
ing asunder  of  soul  and  spirit,  and  of  the  joints  and 
marrow,  and  is  a  discerner  of  the  thoughts  and  intents 
of  the  heart.  Neither  is  there  any  creature,  that  is 
not  manifest  in  his  sight."  Christ,  sending  word  by 
his  servant  John,  unto  the  church  in  Thyatira,  says, 
"all  the  churches  shall  know  that  I  am  he,  which 
searcheth  the  reins  and  hearts,^"*  To  these  may  be 
added  another  testimony  "In  whom  (i.  e.  Christ)  are 
bid  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge." 
The  sacred  scriptures  do  not  ascribe  a  greater  extent 
of  knowledge  to  God  the  Father.  The  office  of 
Mediator  between  God  and  man,  which  Christ  sus- 
tains, renders  it  necessary  that  his  knowledge  should 
be  adequate  to  the  work.  If  he  was  not  perfectly 
acquainted  with  his  Father's  will,  he  would  not  be 
capacitated  to  treat,  in  his  stead,  with  the  human 
race.  If  he  was  not  perfectly  acquainted  with  the 
thoughts,  desires,  and  conditions  of  the  human  race, 
he  would  not  be  capacitated  to  mediate  between  them 
and  their  offended  Sovereign.  He  needs  to  be  per- 
fectly acquainted  with  both  parties,  in  order  to  fill  the 
Mediator's  office.  In  addition  to  this,  he  has  a  knowl- 
edge of  all  the  works  of  his  hand;  and  of  course  he 
possesses  the  highest  degree  of  knowledge  which 
can  be  conceived. 

But  there  are  texts  of  scripture  which  appear  to 
limit  his  knowledge;  and  these  texts  have  been  eagerly 
used  for  the  purpose  of  robbing  Christ  of  his  divine 
nature.  Christ  saith,  "I  do  nothing  of  myself;  but  as 
my  Father  hath  taught  me,  I  speak  these  things." 
From  this  it  is  inferred  that  he  derives  his  knowledge 
from  the  instruction  of  his  heavenly  Father.  In  this 
discourse  with  the  Jews,  Jesus  taught  them  his  union 
with  the  Father,  and  his  subordination  to  him.  He 
taught  them  that  he  was  not  alone;  that  his  Father 


DIVINE    ATTRIBUTES    ASCRIBED    TO    CHRIST.  101 

was  with  him,  and  that  he  acted  in  perfect  coinci- 
dence with  his  will.  In  the  same  manner  that  he 
was  from  God,  so  was  his  knowledge  from  God,  or  he 
was  taught  of  God.  The  scriptures  represent  perfect 
order,  subordination  and  agreement  subsisting  in  the 
Trinity,  in  the  work  of  redemption.  If  it  is  the 
place  "of  the  Son  to  do  his  Father's  will,  it  is  proper 
to  saj  the  Father  teaches,  or  communicates  to  him 
his  will.  This  appears  to  be  a  correct  method  in 
official  transactions,  although  the  Son  knew  all  his 
Father's  purposes.  It  is  true  Christ  knoweth  nothing 
of  himself,  and  he  doeth  nothing  o/* himself.  He  is  in 
concert  with  the  Father;  and  the  Father  is  with  him 
in  all  his  operations.  The  order  of  offices  justifies 
the  mode  of  expression,  which  gives  priority  to  one, 
and  posteriority  to  the  other. 

Christ  speaking  of  the  day  of  judgment  says,  "Of 
that  day  and  that  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no,  not  the 
angels,  which  are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son,  but  the 
Father."  From  this  text  has  been  inferred  the  limited 
knowledge  of  the  Son.  It  has  been  suggested  that 
so  much  of  this  text  as  relates  to  the  Son  was  an 
interpolation  by  the  Arlans.  But  it  is  not  necessary 
to  make  this  resort  in  order  to  explain  the  passage 
consistently  with  the  omniscience  of  the  Son.  There 
are  various  passages,  in  which  Christ  expresses  his 
inferiority  to  the  Father;  and  there  are  various  other 
passages,  in  which  he  expresses  his  equality  with  tiic 
Father.  It  is  impossible  to  account  for  this  difference 
of  representations  of  himself  without  admitting  the 
union  of  two  natures,  the  human  and  divine.  He 
might  speak  of  his  humanity  in  a  limited  degree.  He 
might  also  speak  of  his  divinity  in  an  unlimited  degree; 
and  in  both  instances  adhere  to  the  truth.  In  his 
capacity  as  Son  of  man  he  might  not  know  the  time 
of  the  day  of  judgment;  but  as  Son  of  God  ho  might 
have  a  perfect  knowledge  of  it.  It  is  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  he,  who  is  to  raise  the  dead  and  pass 
sentence  upon  them,  should  foreknow  the  day  ol'  these 


102  DIVINE    ATTRIBUTES    ASCRIBED    TO     CHRIST. 

important  events.  It  can  be  said  with  truth  that  man 
is  mortal.  It  can  be  said  with  equal  truth  that  he  is 
immortal.  Our  Lord  said  at  a  certain  time,  "Now  / 
am  no  more  in  the  icorld."  Again  he  said,  "Ye  have 
the  poor  always  with  you,  but  me  ye  have  not  always.''^ 
In  another  place  he  says,  "Lo  I  am  with  you  always.''^ 
The  fact  was,  his  bodily  presence  was  soon  to  be 
removed  from  them;  but  his  spiritual  presence  was 
to  be  continued.  Of  course,  what  he  denied  respect- 
ing his  humanity  hie  might  with  propriety  and  sincerity- 
assert  respecting  his  divinity.  If  he  could  make  this 
distinction  in  one  point  of  view,  there  is  no  reason  why 
he  miffht  not  make  the  same  distinction  in  another 
point  of  view.  This  mode  of  speakmg  did  not  prob- 
ably convey  distinct  ideas  to  the  minds  of  his  disciples. 
He  often  taught  them  in  obscure  figures.  He  did  not 
design  to  make  a  full  revelation  of  himself  till  after 
his  resurrection.  A  full  disclosure  of  himself  while 
he  was  upon  earth  would  have  had  a  tendency  to 
frustrate  the  object  of  his  coming  into  the  world. 
"We  speak  the  wisdom  of  God  in  a  mystery^  even  the 
hidden  wisdom,  which  God  ordained  before  the  world 
unto  our  glory;  which  none  of  the  princes  of  this  world 
knew;  for  had  they  known  it,  they  would  not  have  cru- 
cified the  Lord  of  glory,^'' 

Goodness  or  holiness  is  attributed,  in  an  eminent 
degree  to  Christ,  in  the  sacred  scriptures.  In  his 
incarnate  state  he  was  "holy,  harmless,  undefiled,  sep- 
arate from  sinners.  He  did  no  sin,  neither  was  guile 
found  in  his  mouth."  The  object  of  his  coming  into 
the  world  and  the  works,  which  he  performed  while 
he  was  upon  earth,  indicated,  in  the  highest  degree, 
the  holiness  of  his  nature.  If  it  was  an  act  of  divine 
goodness  to  create  the  world;  form  man  upright  and 
place  him  in  paradise,  it  was  an  act  of  equal  goodness 
to  make  a  propitiation  for  sin;  to  pay  a  ransom  for 
sinners;  and  to  prepare  mansions  for  them  in  Paradise 
above.  Those  particular  acts  of  goodness,  which 
characterize  the  nature  of  God,  are  also  ascribed  to 


DIVINE   ATTRIBUTES   ASCRIBED   TO    CHRIST.  103 

Christ.  Is  God  called  merciful?  Of  the  Son  it  is  said, 
"Looking  for  the  mercy  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  unto 
eternal  life."  Is  God  called  gracioug?  Of  Christ  it 
is   said,   "If  so   be  ye   have   tasted   that   the  Lord  is 

fmcious."  Is  God  called  long-suffering?  The  apostle 
aul  sajs,  "I  obtained  rnercj,  that  in  me  first  Jesus 
Christ  might  shew  forth  all  long-suffering^  Is  right- 
eousness ascribed  to  God?  Christ  is  called  the  right- 
eous Judge;  the  Lord  our  righteousness.  It  is  bj 
his  righteousness  that  sinners  are  justified.  St.  John 
heard  the  angel  say,  "Thou  art  righteous  O  Lord." 

When  the  rich  young  man  addressed  Christ  by  the 
title,  good  Master,  he  seemed  to  check  him  by  saying, 
"Why  callest  thou  me  good?  There  is  none  good  but 
One,  that  is  God."  By  this  interrogation  and  asser- 
tion, Christ  did  not  design  to  deny  his  claim  to  good- 
ness, not  even  to  divine  goodness.  It  appears  that 
the  young  man  was  not  apprehensive  that  Christ  was 
divine;  that  he  viewed  him  only  as  a  man  of  more 
than  ordinary  endowments;  that  he  viewed  him  as  a 
prophet.  According  to  the  young  man's  apprehension 
of  Christ  he  gave  him  a  title  higher  than  he  deserved; 
though  not  higher  than  he  really  deserved.  On  this 
ground  Christ  made  his  reply. 

The  Jews  formed  their  ideas  of  God  from  the  same 
titles,  attributes,  or  characters,  which  are  applied  to 
Christ.  If  they  had  evidence  from  this  source  that 
there  was  a  God,  there  is  the  same  evidence  that 
Christ  is  God.  Had  only  a  single  divine  title  or  attri- 
bute been  ascribed  to  Christ,  there  would  have  been 
ground  to  suspect  that  they  were  applied  to  him  figu- 
ratively, or  applied  to  him  as  they  have  been  applied 
to  men.  But  when  it  is  considered  that  all  divine 
titles  and  attributes,  except  those  which  distinguish 
the  Father  from  the  Son,  in  their  relationship  or  in 
their  distinct  offices,  are  applied  to  Christ,  it  is  impos- 
sible to  account  for  their  just  ap})lication  without 
admitting  that  he  is  divine.  It  pleased  the  Father 
that  iu  him  should  all  fulness  dwell.     In  him  dwelt 


104         DIVINE   ATTRIBUTES    ASCRIBED    TO    CHRIST. 

all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily.  He  is  the 
express  image  of  his  person;  the  very  character  of  his 
substance.  If  there  were  no  plurality  in  the  divine 
nature,  which  is  the  ground  of  the  distinctions,  Father 
and  Son,  it  appears  to  be  improper  to  say  that  in  him 
dwelt  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead.  If,  on  this 
principle,  all  divine  fulness  dwelt  in  him,  there  would 
be  no  ground  for  addressing  divinity  out  of  himself. 
There  would  be  no  ground  of  his  addressing  the 
Father.  If  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  dwelt  in 
Christ,  divine  nature  and  divine  attributes  dwelt  in 
him;  otherwise,  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  did  not 
dwell  in  him;  he  was  not  the  character  of  divine  nature. 

If  God  made  communications  to  Christ  as  he  did  to 
the  prophets,  only  in  a  greater  degree,  he  would  not 
possess  one  divine  attribute.  Divine  Julness  would 
not  dwell  in  him.  If  there  be  no  ground  of  distinction 
in  the  divine  nature,  and  God  should  communicate 
his  Julness  to  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  he  would  only 
change  his  condition,  (if  the  expression  may  be  allowed) 
but  there  would  be  no  ground  of  distinction  between 
the  Father  and  the  Son;  nor  would  there  be  ground 
for  one  to  address  the  other.  It  is  absurd  to  say  that 
Christ  possesses  divine  attributes  only  in  a  limited 
degree.  Divine  attributes  are  infinite,  or  in  the 
greatest  possible  degree.  What  is  less  is  not  divine. 
if  this  be  not  true,  it  is  impossible  to  draw  a  line  of 
distinction  between  human  and  divine  attributes. 

As  divine  attributes  are  as  clearly  and  fully  ascribed 
to  the  Son  as  they  are  to  the  Father;  and  as  a  nature 
is  known  only  by  its  attributes,  it  follows  that  there 
is  as  clear  evidence,  from  this  source,  of  the  divine 
nature  of  the  Son,  as  of  the  Father.* 

*  Who  being  the  express  image  of  his  person.  ^ag*KT»!g  Ttt?"  C'Troa-Ta.miie 
di/Toy.  Heb.  1:3.  These  original  M'ords  signify  the  character  of  his  substance. 
A  character  is  an  exact  rei)resentation  of  the  seal  or  stamp,  which  inaiies  the. 
impression.  They  are  of  the  same  dimensions;  and  they  perfectly  correspond 
in  all  their  parts.  According  to  the  perfection  of  the  former,  so  is  the  perfec- 
tion of  the  latter.  If  Christ  represents  the  Father  as  a  character  represents  its 
seal,  there  is  an  exact  correspondence  between  thein.  They  are  of  the  same 
extent.     Their  attributes  are  correspoadent,  and  of  equal  perfection.    If  Christ 


DIVINE    ATTRIBUTES    ASCRIBED    TO    CHRIST.  105 

be  of  finite  nature  and  finite  properties,  there  is  no  proportion,  there  is  no 
coriespondence  between  him  and  the  Father,  who  is  of  infinite  perfection.  If 
extraordinary  powers  were  delegated  to  him,  they  would  make  no  addition  to 
his  riHiure;  and  of  course  they  would  not  make  him  the  chiiracter,  or  exact 
likenes    of  the  Father's    substance. 

"Before  Abraham  was,  I  am."  John  8:58.  We  produce  this  text,  not  to  prove 
the  eternal  existence  of  tlie  Son,  but  to  prove  liis  pre-existence.  Attempts 
have  been  made  to  evade  even  this  proof  from  the  text.  It  is  contended  that 
Christ  did  not  design  to  convey  an  idea  that  he  iiad  existence  before  Abraham, 
but  that  before  his  day  he  was  appointed  by  the  counsel  of  Heaven  to  the  ofiice 
of  Alevsiah;  that  he  was  ordained  to  be  the  Christ.  If  this  be  the  meaning  of 
the  te.vt,  he  gave  a  very  indirect  answer  to  the  question  of  the  Jews.  Their 
inquiry  related  to  his  age;  and  if  his  answer  related  to  the  time  of  his  apponit- 
ment  to  oflice,  there  is  not  the  least  connexion  between  the  answer  and  the 
question.  Uather  than  to  suppose  this  prevarication,  we  woul<l  use  the  text 
according  to  its  most  easy  and  natural  construction;  that  Christ  was  before 
Abraham. 

''Glorify  thou  me  with  thine  ownseif,  Avith  the  glory,  which  I  had  with  thee 
before  the  world  was."  John  17:5.  This  text  is  offered  to  prove  Christ's  pre- 
existence  only  It  is  an  unhappy  evasion  to  say  that  this  glory,  whicb  Christ 
once  had  witii  the  Father,  and  for  which  he  prayed,  was  a  glory,  which  v/as 
reserved  (or  him,  which  was  in  the  Father's  purpose  and  decree.  It  could  not, 
with  truth  be  said  that  he  ever  had  a  glory,  which  was  only  reserved  or  pur- 
posed ior  him.  Besides,  if  he  prayed  for  this  degree  of  glory,  he  would  pray 
only  for  a  glory  to  be  kept  in  reserve  or  purpose;  for  this,  upon  the  present 
hypothesis,  is  the  glory  he  had  with  the  Father, 

"I  am  Alpha  and  Omega,' the  beginning  and  the  end,  the  first  and  the  last." 
llev.  22:13.  It  is  admitted  by  Unitarians  that  these  are  the  words  of  Christ. 
The  terms,  first  and  last,  are  applied  in  the  Old  Testament  to  God.  If  these 
terms,  when  applied  to  him,  express  his  eternal  existence,  they  equally  express 
the  eternal  existence  of  Christ,  when  applied  to  him.  It  is  admitted  that  many 
■words  in  the  scriptures,  which,  according  to  their  natural  meaning,  are  taken  in 
their  greatest  latitude,  are  restricted  by  their  application.  But  there  is  no  re- 
striction, or  qualification  intimated,  when  the  terms  first  and  last  are  applied  to 
Christ.  To  say  "they  signify  that  Jesus  Christ,  is  contemporary  witli  tiie  ear- 
liest and  latest  events  in  that  dispensation,  over  which  he  has  been  ordained  by 
the  Almighty  to  preside,"  is  begging  the  question.  It  is  assuming  that  he  had 
no  authority,  or  that  he  did  not  preside  over  any  thing  till  he  commenced  the 
dispensation  of  mercy  with  mankind.  When  the  prophet  Isaiah  applies  the  same 
terms  to  the  God  of  Israel,  some  captious  critic  might  as  well  say,  they  signify 
that  God  is  contemporary  with  the  earliest  and  latest  events  of  the  Jewish  dis- 
pensation. With  such  license,  it  would  be  impossible  to  prove  one  divine  attri- 
bute of  God  the  Father. 

"But  thou  Bethlehem  Ephratah,  though  thou  be  httle  among  the  thousands  of 
Judah,  yet  out  of  thee  shall  he  come  forth  unto  me  that  is  to  be  Ruler  in 
Israel,  whose  goings  forth  have  been  from  of  old,  from  everlasting."  Micah  5:2. 
The  original  words  standing  for  "shall  he  come  forth,"  and  "whose  goings  forth," 
are  radically  the  same.  It  is  contended  that  the  first,  signifies  his  birth  at  Beth- 
lehem; and  that  "the  last  clause  must  therefore  be  understood  thus:  "tuhose 
birth  has  been  of  old  from  everlasting;"  i.  e.  "whose  birth  has  been  determined, 
or  appointed  from  everlasiiiig."  Even  though  the  ex\n-ession,  "goings  forth," 
should  be  referred  to  an  earlier  period  of  our  Lord's  e.\istence  than  his  birth  from 
the  Virgin  Mary,  it  must  signify  generation  in  some  way  or  other,  and 
therefore  favors  the  Unitarian  doctrine,  that  he  haA  &  beginning,  rather  than 
the  orthodox  opinion  of  his  eternity."    (See  Yates'  Vindication  of  Unitarianism.) 

This  learned  author  makes  the  assumption,  that  the  phrase,  "shall  he  come 
forth,"  signifies  his  natural  birth.  The  original  word  does  not  necessarily 
signify  birth.  It  is  sumetimes  applied  to  it.  But  it  is  also  ".ipplied  to  the  pro- 
ductions of  the  earth,  or  of  vegetables;  to  the  solar  lights  going  forth  upon  the 
earth;  so  to  the  stellar  lights,  to  the  springing,  or  coming  forth  of  waters;  to 
come  or  go  forth,  or  out,  in  almost  any  manner."  (See  Park.  Heb.  Lex.  on  the 
word.)  ''Out  of  thee,"  i.  e.  Bethlehem,  "shall  he  come  forth  to  me."  However 
common  the  supposition  may  be,  it  is  hard  to  conceive  that  Christ's  coming 
forth  out  of  the  city    Bethlehem  to   his    Father,   should  signify    his  natural 

14 


106  DIVINE   ATTRIBUTES   ASCRIBED    TO    CHRIST. 

birth.  But  if  this  suppositioti  were  correct,  and  the  latter  phrase,  "his  goings 
fortli,^^  signified  the  same  thing,  the  inference  would  be,  thai  he  had  a  natural 
birth  l)efore  lie  was  born  of  Mary.  As  the  latter  phrase  is  in  the  plural  number, 
it  would  follow  that  he  had  had  several  natural  births  be.'bre  that  time,  the 
learned  author,  however,  only  infers  that  '-it  must  signify  generation  in  some 
•way  or  other  "  But  this  is  making  the  conclusion  broader  than  the  premises. 
To  apply  the  first  [ihrase  lo  his  natural  birth,  and  the  latter  to  an  unintelligible 
generation,  is  neither  agreeable  to  sound  logic,  nor  to  the  rules  of  strict  criti- 
cism. The  LXX  did  not  understand,  by  the  original  terms,  an}  kind  of  birth  or 
generation.  If  we  understand  the  terms  according  to  their  natural  and  true 
import,  as  they  stand  in  our  translation,  we  shall  find  that  he,  who  came  torth 
from  Bethlehem  on  his  Father's  business,  had  also  gone  forth  from  him,  from  of 
old,  from  everlasting. 

"Jesus  Christ  the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  for  ever."  Heb.  1.3:8.  It  is 
contended  by  some  that  Jesus  Christ,  in  this  text,  is  put  for  the  doctrines  which 
he  taught;  and  that  this  text  proves  not  the  immutability  of  his  nature;  but  only 
the  immutability  of  his  doctrines.  It  is  admitted  that  his  name  is  sometimes 
used  to  signify  his  religion.  But  it  does  not  lollow  from  this  that  it  is  always 
used  in  this  sense,  or  that  it  is  so  used  in  this  passage.  But  if  this  were  the 
true  meaning  of  the  text,  it  would  aftbrd  some  evidence  of  his  immutability. 
If  he  be  the  Author  and  Supporter  of  an  unchangeable  religion;  if  his  kingdom  be 
of  one  nature,  and  his  laws  and  administration  be  without  essential  variation, 
there  is  strong  evidence  that  he  himself  does  not  essentially  change.  If  his  de- 
signs are  always  the  same,  there  is  no  reasonable  doubt  that  he  is  always  the 
same.  In  the  former  part  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  apostle,  after  at- 
tributing the  work  of  creation  to  the  Son,  asserts  his  immutability  by  the  same 
terms,  thou  art  the  same  (o  at/ roc.)  To  speak  of  the  visible  changes,  which 
Christ  sustained  during  his  humiliation  is  mere  evasion.  It  is  to  speak  of  the 
mutability  of  his  humanity,  which  all  admit. 

•'No  man  hath  ascended  up  to  heaven,  but  he  that  came  down  from  heaven, 
even  the  Son  of  man,  which  is  in  heaven."  John  3:13.  Trinitarian  commen- 
tators are  not  agreed  in  their  explanations  of  this  text.  It  appear  s,  howe*er,  that 
the  first  clause  cannot  be  understood  literally.  For  Enoch  and  Elijah  were  taken 
up  bodily  into  heaven.  The  connexion  of  this  text  authorizes  a  belief  that  Christ, 
by  his  declaration,  "no  man  hath  ascended  up  to  heaven,"  designed  to  shew 
that  no  person  beside  himself  was  fully  acquainted  with  the  counsel  of  heaven. 
He  positively  asserted  that  he  spoke  what  he  kneiv,  and  testified  what  he  had 
seen.  He  knew  and  he  had  seen  what  mere  man  never  knew  nor  saw.  If  the  first 
part  of  the  text  is  understood  figuratively,  there  is  no  necessity  of  understand- 
ing the  second  clause  in  this  manuer.  Other  texts,  without  the  appearance  of  a 
figure,  assert  that  he  came  down  from  heaven.  Christ  himself  says,  "1  came 
down  from  heaven."  The  Jews  understood  him  to  speak  literally;  for  they  said, 
•'is  not  this  Jesus,  the  son  of  Joseph,  whose  father  and  mother  we  know,  how  is 
it  then  that  he  saith,  I  came  down  from  heaven?"  The  apostle  Paul,  speaking 
of  Christ's  ascension,  saith,  "now  that  he  ascended,  what  is  it  but  that  he  also 
descended  first  into  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth?  He  that  descended  is  the 
same  also,  that  ascended  up  far  above  all  heavens." 

The  latter  part  of  the  text,  "the  Son  of  man,  who  is  in  heaven,"  natural!^ 
conveys  the  idea  that  he,  who  had  descended  from  heaven,  and  was  then  speak- 
ing, was  also  in  heaven.  This  construction  is  ea.sy,  if  it  be  admitted  that  divinity 
was  united  with  the  Sod  of  man.  If  this  union  be  denied  it  is  diificult  to  explain 
this  passage. 

•'They  went  forth,  and  preached  every  where,  the  Lord  working  with  them, 
and  confirming  the  word  with  signs  following,"  Alark  16:20.  "Where  two  or 
three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name,  there  am  I  in  the  midst  of  them," 
Mat.  18:'20.  •'Lo,  lam  witli  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world,"  Matt. 
28:20.  A  learned  Unitarian,  (see  Yates'  Vindication  of  Unitarianism,  p  225,) 
admits  that  these  texts  "prove,  that  he  was  virtually  present  with  his  disciples, 
to  guard,  comfort,  and  assist  them  in  their  apostolic  labors."  To  prove  his  om- 
nipresence, he  considers  it  necessary  to  shew  that  his  substance  is  extended 
through  all  space.  Tbis  extension  of  substance  he  considers  to  be  the  omni- 
presence of  God.  The  distinction  between  actual  and  virtual  omnipresence  of 
God  is  a  subject  better  calculated  for  the  speculations  of  metaphysicians  than 
for  the  discussion  of  theologians.  Let  the  conclusion  be  which  waj'  it  will,  the 
effect  will  be  the  same.     Whether  he  be  actually  or  virtually  present,  it  is  in 


DIVINE    ATTRIBUTES    ASCRIBED    TO     CHRIST.  107 

(or  rather  by)  him  we  live,  move,  and  have  our  being.  We  know  too  little  of 
spiritual  substance  to  have  definite  conceptions  of  its  extension,  or  of  its  relation 
to  place.  We  cannot  define  the  limits  of  owr  spii-iis;  but  we  have  reason  to  be- 
lieve that  we  have  perceptions,  and  we  produce  effects  far  beyond  the  extension 
of  our  material  or  spiritual  substance,  if  a  finite  spirit  can  produce  effects 
where  its  substance  does  not  actu;illy  extend,  it  does  not  appear  to  be  necessary 
to  suppose  that  the  substance  of  the  divine  Spirit  should  be  actually  extended 
wherever  he  operates.  If  it  be  admitted  that  the  virtual  presence  of  Christ  is 
"with  his  disciples,  to  guard,  comfort,  and  assist  them  in  theii-  apostolic  labors," 
it  is  believed  that  the  presence  of  <iod  with  them  is  not  superior  to  this,  either 
in  its  nature,  or  in  its  efi'ects;  and  till  it  is  proved  to  be  superior,  there  appears 
to  be  no  presumption  in  the  belitf  We  do  not  maintain  that  these  texts  alone 
prove  Christ's  universal  presence;  but  th.y  appear  to  prove  his  presence  to  be 
of  such  a  nature,  that  it  may  as  well  extend  to  every  other  creature.  But  we 
are  not  left  to  inference  on  this  subject  The  apostle  expressly  tells  us,  "by 
him  all  t h in ffs  consist. ,"  Col.  1:17.  "U|ihol(ling  a//  things  \)\  the  word  of  his 
power,"  Ht-b.  1:3.  'I'hese  texts  prove,  (and  it  is  presumed  it  will  be  admitted) 
that  Christ's  virtual  presence  is  as  extensive  as  the  works  of  creation;  and  till 
it  is  proved  that  the  presence  of  God  the  Father  is  more  extensive  and  of  a 
higher  nature,  we  shall  call  it  omnipresence,  and  a  divine   attribute. 

*'Now  we  are  sure  that  thouknowest  all  things  and  needest  not  that  any  man 
should  ask  thee."  John  10:30-  "But  Jesus  did  not  commit  himself  unto  them, 
because  he  knew  all  men,  and  needed  not  that  any  should  testify  of  man;  for  he 
knew  what  was  in  man,"  John  2:24,  '25. 

"Lord,  which  knoivest  the  hearts  of  all  men,  shew  whether  of  these  two  thou 
hast  chosen,"  Acts  1:'24.  It  is  probable  that  the  address  in  the  last  verse  quoted 
was  made  to  Christ.  It  was  his  province,  while  he  was  upon  earth  to  designate 
men  to  the  apostleship.  After  his  resuriection  his  authority  was  not  abridged.  So 
far  from  it  that  all  authority  in  heaven  and  in  earth  was  given  unto  him.  Of 
course  he  retained  the  authority  of  selecting  and  sending  forth  apostles.  It  was 
with  petuUar  propriety  that  they  should  direct  their  requests  to  him  to  desig- 
nate which  of  the  two  candidates  should  fill  the  place,  which  Judas  had 
vacated. 

In  these  texts  Christ  is  said  to  know  all  things;  to  know  all  men;  to  know 
what  is  in  man.  But  we  are  told  that  "the  word  all,  does  not  always  denote 
strict  universality."  The  very  same  phrase,  of  knowing  all  things,  is  used  in  ap- 
plication to  men.  "Ye  have  an  unction  from  the  Holy  One,  and  ye  know  all 
things,"  1  John  2:20.  It  is  admitted  that  the  word  all,  is  sometimes  used  in  the 
scriptures  in  a  limited  sense.  Because  it  is  sometimes  used  in  this  manner,  it 
does  not  follow  that  it  is  uhuays  used  so.  Because  it  is  used  in  a  restricted  sense, 
when  it  is  applied  to  men,  it  does  not  follow  that  it  is  to  be  restricted,  when  it  is 
applied  to  Jesus  Christ.  But  we  are  not  left  to  ambiguous  terms  and  phrases  to 
prove  the  divine  knowledge  of  Christ.  He  is  said  to  know  what  was  in  man  At 
different  times  he  gave  evidence  that  he  possessed  this  knowledge.  But  we  are 
told  that  this  knowledge  might  be  revealed  to  him;  that  "numerous  instances 
of  this  occur  in  scripture."  Ahijah  the  prophet,  although  blind  through  age,  was 
inspired  to  know  the  wife  of  Jeroboam  and  the  intentions  of  her  heart,  notwith- 
standing she  feigned  herself  another.  It  is  asserted,  concerning  Elijah  the 
prophet,  that  he  could  tell  the  things,  which  the  king  of  Israel  should  do  in  his 
bed  chamber;  an  expression  denoting  a  knowledge  of  the  most  secret  transac- 
tions. Much  in  point  is  the  declaration  of  Elisha.  And  the  man  of  God  said, 
"Let  her  alone,  for  her  soul  is  vexed  within  her;  and  the  Lord  hath  hidden  it 
from  me,  and  hath  not  told  me."  We  have  a  memoi-able  instance  in  the  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  in  which  Peter  knew  by  inspiration,  that  Ananias  had  kejit  back 
part  of  the  price  of  the  land,  though  he  declared  he  had  not;  and,  also,  that  he 
and  his  wife  had  secretly  agreed  to  maintain  the  falsehood.  "My  lord  is  wise 
according  to  the  wisdom  ol  an  angel  of  God,  to  know  all  things  that  are  in  the 
earth." 

These  are  particular  cases  of  extraordinary  knowledge.  In  the  case  of  Ahijah, 
it  is  expressly  asserted,  that  the  Lord  told  him  the  errand  and  the  deception  of 
Jeroboam's  wife.  In  respect  to  Elisha's  knowledge  of  the  words,  which  the  king 
of  Syria  spoke  in  his  bed  chamber,  it  is  only  a  declaration  of  a  servant  of  the 
Syrian  king.  But  admitting  his  declaration  to  be  literally  true,  it  only  proves 
that  a  particular  fact  was  revealed  to  him.  When  th«  Shunamite  went  unto 
Elisha  with  the  sad  tidings  of  the  death  of  her  son,  he  did  not  know  her  errand; 


108         DIVINE   ATTRIBUTES    ASCRIBED   TO    CHRIST. 

and  for  this  reason,  the  Lord  had  hid  it  from  him,  and  had  not  told  him.  This  im.' 
plies  that  when  he  had  extraordinary  knowledge,  it  was  by  inspiration.  It  is  not 
recorded  horv  Peter  knew  the  secret  deception  of  Ananias  and  his  wife.  But  there 
is  no  doubt  that  he  received  knowledge  of  this  event,  from  Him,  who  gave  him 
power  to  heal  a  lame  man.  When  the  widow  of  Tekoah  perceived  that  David  had 
discovered  her  deception;  and  convinced  of  his  sagacity,  she  in  a  complimentary 
manner  compared  him  with  an  angel  of  God  to  know  all  things  that  are  in  the 
earth.  In  all  these  instances,  extraordinary  knowledge  was  communicated  by 
the  divine  Being.  But  these  communications  were  made  only  hi  particular 
cases,  and  for  special  purposes.  Those  men,  who  were  thus  endowed,  had 
not  a  knowledge  of  the  hearts  of  men  generally,  nor  had  they  a  knowledge  of  a 
single  heart  at  all  times. 

Christ's  knowledge  appears  very  different  from  this.  He  knew  not  only  a 
particular  thought  of  a  particular  person,  but  he  knew  uU  men;  and  needed  not 
that  a?it/  should  testify  of  man;  for  he  knew  what  was  in  man.  This  text  ex- 
presses his  knowledge  of  what  is  in  the  hearts  of  mankind;  and  he  possesses  this 
knowledge  without  antj  one's  testifying  to  him  what  passes  in  the  human  mind. 
There  is  no  intimation  given  that  he  received  this  knowledge  by  inspiration. 
This  and  some  other  texts,  which  are  applied  to  Christ,  are  as  expressive  of 
divine  knowledge,  as  any  texts,  which  are  applied  to  the  Father.  But  we  ace 
told,  there  are  texts,  which  represent  Christ's  knowledge  to  be  inferior  to  the 
Father's,  or  to  be  derived  from  him.  It  is  admitted  there  are  two  classes  of 
texts,  which  are  applied  to  Christ.  One  class  represents  him  having  knowledge, 
■which  is  peculiar  to  Deity.  Another  class  represents  him  having  limited  knowl- 
edge; having  knowledge,  or  doctrines,  given,  shewn,  taught  him  trom  above. 
These  two  classes  of  texts  exhibit  Christ  in  his  divine  and  human  nature.  When 
things  are  said  to  be  given,  shewn,  and  taught  to  Christ,  he  is  either  exhibited 
in  his  humanity,  or  in  his  mediatorial,  subordinate  office.  When  Christ  says, 
,"The  Father  loveth  the  Son,  and  sheweth  him  all  things,  that  himself  doeth,"  he 
asserts  his  perfect  knowledge  of  all  the  operations  of  the  Father;  and  also  the 
intimate  union,  which  subsists  between  them.  To  express  their  equality  of 
knowledge  in  unequivocal  language  he  says,  "^s  the  Father  knoweth  m«,  even 
so  know  I  the  Father." 

•'I  am  he  which  searcheth  the  reins  and  hearts;  and  I  will  give  unto 
every  one  of  you  according  to  your  works,"  Rev.  2:23.  It  will  not  be  pre- 
tended that  Christ  searcheth,  by  inspiration,  the  reins  and  hearts.  A  persoa 
may  be  inspired  tvith  a  knowledge  of  what  passes  in  another's  heart;  but  it  is  not 
proper  to  say,  one  is  inspired  to  search  his  heart.  But  it  is  asserted  that  power 
may  be  delegated  to  Christ  for  this  purpose;  and  it  is  supposed  he  "will  at  the 
day  of  general  judgment  be  endued  with  all  the  knowledge  of  men's  thoughts 
and  dispositions,  which  is  necessary  to  the  discharge  of  his  office."  Let  it  be 
observed,  that  a  text  in  the  book  of  Jeremiah  predicates  of  God  the  same  power. 
"I  the  Lord  search  the  heart,  I  try  the  reins,  even  to  give  every  man  according 
to  his  ways,  and  according  to  the  fruit  of  his  doings."  Now  let  it  be  asked  why 
the  same  unqualified  words,  when  Christ  applies  them  to  himself,  do  not  import 
the  same  power,  as  when  God  applies  them  to  himself?  By  what  rule  are  they  to 
be  restricted  in  one  case,  and  not  in  the  other?  A  delegation  of  power  to  a 
creature  to  know  all  things  is  an  impartation  entirely  disproportionate  to  the 
capacity  of  the  recipient.  Christ,  to  express  his  union  and  equality  with  the 
Father,  says,  "What  things  soever  he  doeth,  these  also  doeth  the  Son  likewise." 
At  the  same  time  he  disclaimed  all  pretensions  to  acting  separately  from  him. 


CHRIST  THE  AUTHOR  OF  CREATION. 


All  things  were  made  by  him,  and  without  him  was 
not  any  thing  made  that  was  made.  John  1:  3.  There 
are  various  sources,  from  which  information  may  be 
derived  respecting  the  nature  of  beings.  Sonsething 
may  be  learned  from  their  names.  Something  may 
be  learned  from  their  attributes;  and  much  may  be 
learned  from  their  operations.  Those  exercises,  which 
are  limited  in  degree  and  in  extent,  are  justly  attribu- 
ted to  finite  beings.  Those  exercises,  which  are  un- 
limited in  degree  and  extent,  or  are  in  the  highest 
possible  degree,  characterize  a  nature  of  infinite  power. 
In  the  chain  of  visible  existences  there  is  a  visible 
chain  of  dependencies.  Those  limited  powers,  which 
are  discovered,  are  dependent;  and  may  be  traced  to 
a  power,  as  their  origin,  which  is  independent.  This 
power  resides  in  a  nature,  which  is  distinct  from  all 
other  natures,  and  is  superior  to  them.  It  resides  in  a 
nature,  which  alone  is  divine.  That  power,  from  which 
all  other  power  originated,  is  infinite  and  independent. 
This  power  is  attributed  to  the  Son  of  God,  and  it 
designates  his  divinity. 

The  apostle  Paul,  in  one  place  says  that  God  made 
the  worlds  by  Jesus  Christ.  In  another  place  he  says, 
by  him  he  created  all  things.  From  this  mode  of 
expression  it  has  been  inferred  that  the  Son  had  no 
inherent  power  in  his  nature  adequate  to  the  work 
of  creation;  that  he  was  merely  an  instrument  in  God's 


110       CHRIST  THE  AUTHOR  OP  CREATION. 

hand,  by  which  he  performed  this  great  work.     The 
phrase,  by  him  (pi  avrov)  has  been  considered  import- 
ing an  instrumental,  but  not  an  efficient  cause.  But  this 
phrase  does  not  necessarily  import  mere  instrumen- 
tality} nor  does  it  usually  import  it  in  the  sacred  scrip- 
tures.      The  same    particle    is    connected  with   the 
Father  and  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  well  as  with  the 
Son.     The  love  of  God  is  shed  abroad  in  our  hearts 
by  the  Holy  Ghost.      The  apostle   Paul  speaking  of 
God  says,  "Of  him  and  by  him,  and   to   him  are   all 
things."     If  the  particle  (5i)  connected  with  God  and 
the  Holy  Ghost,  does  not  import   instrumentality,  it 
does   not  necessarily  import  it,  when  it  is   applied  to 
the  Son.       The  same   particle  repeatedly  imports,  in 
the  sacred  scriptures,  the  principle  and  efficient  cause. 
After  Peter  had  healed  a  lame  man,  he  ascribed  the 
cure  to  the  power  of  the   Son  -of  God  as   its  cause. 
"The  faith,  which  is  by  him,  hath  given  him  this  per- 
fect soundness  in  the   presence  of  you  all."     Christ 
was  the  Author  of  this  faith;  and  this  faith  was  the 
instrumental  or  secondary  cause   of  the  cure.     The 
apostle  Paul,  speaking  of  Christ,  says,  ''''By  whom  we 
have  received  grace  and  apostleship."  The  scriptures 
abundantly  testify  that  Christ  is  the  Author,  or  cause 
of  grace  and   apostleship.     Paul,  in  his  salutation  to 
the  Galatians  begins  thus,  Paul,  an  apostle  not  of  men, 
neither  by  man,  but  by  Jesus  Christ  and  God  the  Father. 
The  same  efficiency  is   ascribed  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 
"How  much  more  shall  the  blood  of  Christ,  who  by 
(Ji)  the  eternal  Spirit  offisred  himself  without  spot  to 
God,  purge  your  conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve 
the  living  God."     "God  is  faithful,  by  whom  (5/  ov)  ye 
were  called  unto  the  fellowship  of  his  Son  Jesus  Christ 
our  Lord.     It  became   him  for  whom  are  all  things, 
and  by  whom  (J/  ov)  are  all  things,  in  bringing  many 
sons  unto  glory,  to  make  the  captain  of  their  salvation 
perfect  through  suffering."     From  this  indiscriminate 
use  and  application  of  the  terms,  by  him,  it  follows  that 
they  do  not  necessarily  import  mere  instrumentality. 


CHRIST   THE    AUTHOR    OF    CREATION.  Ill 

The  common  use  of  the  term,  as  well  as  the  scripture 
use,  shews  that  the  particle  by  (^i)  is  often  connected 
with  the  principal  agent,  or  efficient  cause. 

It  is  not  only  said  in  scripture  that  God  created  the 
worlds  by  Jesus  Christ;  but  it  is  also  said  that  all  things 
were  made  by  him;  and  the  word  God,  is  not  connect- 
ed with  the  declaration.  There  is  no  doubt  that  these 
different  forms  of  expressing  the  same  thing  were  not 
accidental;  but  were  designed  to  express  the  co-ope- 
ration of  the  Father  and  the  Son  in  the  work  of  crea- 
tion. Christ  frequently  declared  his  union  and  co-ope- 
ration with  the  Father.  "My  Father  worketh  hith- 
erto and  I  work.  What  things  soever  he  doeth,  these 
also  doeth  the  Son  likewise.  He  that  sent  me  is  with 
me;  the  Father  hath  not  left  me  alone.  He  that 
hath  seen  me,  hath  seen  the  Father.  Believe  me  that 
I  am  in  the  Father  and  the  Father  in  me."  These 
passages  in  their  connexion  prove  the  union  and  opera- 
tion of  Christ  with  the  Father.  (See  Macknight, 
and  Schleusner's  Lex.  on  5/.) 

Other  passages  of  scripture,  whose  signification  does 
not  turn  on  prepositions  or  doubtful  expressions,  ascribe 
the  work  of  creation  to  Christ.  In  the  Revelation  of 
St.  John,  Christ  is  called  "the  beginning  of  the  crea- 
tion of  God."  The  original  word  («?%vi)  rendered  be- 
ginning, is  used  in  different  senses.  It  signifies  efficient 
cause,  author,  or  head.  (See  Poole  on  the  text.)  Upon 
this  construction,  which  is  the  most  natural,  the  text 
proves  that  Christ  was  Author  of  Creation.  («f%ti 
Christus  vocatur,  quia  fuit  ante  omnes  res  cuatas. 
Schleus.  Lex.)  If  any  doubt  remain  respecting  the 
translation  of  this  word,  other  texts  offer  their  assis- 
tance to  prove  the  subject  under  consideration.  Christ 
saith  of  himself,  "The  Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself, 
but  what  he  seeth  the  Father  do;  for  what  things 
soever  he  doeth,  these  also  doeth  the  Son  likewise." 
This  text  authorizes  a  belief  that  there  is  such  a  union 
between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  that  the  same  work 
may  be  ascribed  to  both.  All  things  are  of  the  Father, 


112  CHRIST    THE    AUTHOR    OF    CREATION. 

but  they  are  hy  the  Son.     All   the  works  of  nature 
may  be  traced  to  them  both  as  one  undivided  Cause. 

Another  passage  is  clearly  to  the  present  purpose. 
"By  him  were  all  things  created  that  are  in  hearen 
and  that  are  in  earth;  whether  they  be  thrones  or 
dominions,  or  principalities  or  powers;  all  things  were 
created  by  him,  and /or  him;  and  he  is  before  all  things 
and  by  him  all  things  consist,"  Col.  1:  16,  17.  These 
textsdescribe  the  extent  of  his  works.  ./^// if /im«-5,  wheth- 
er in  heaven  or  in  earth,  visible  or  invisible,  were  crea- 
ted by  him.  They  were  not  only  created  by  him,  but  they 
were  createdybr  him.  He  was  not  only  the  cause  of  their 
existence,  but  he  was  the  ultimate  object,  for  which 
they  were  created.  They  were  made  for  his  service 
and  glory.  His  power  did  not  cease  to  operate  at  the 
close  of  creation;  but  it  continued  in  sustaining  the 
works  of  his  hand.  "By  him  all  things  consist^  i.  e. 
are  supported.  He  was  before  all  things.  Before 
creatures  were,  he  was.  He  was  begotten  before  the 
whole  creation.  (^(^aloTov.og  -tt^cvjc  uTiffsug.)  Of  course  he 
was  not  himself  any  part  of  creation.  (Christus  vocatur 
T^wTOTo/o?  %aa-viQ  uriaeug  princeps-  &  dominus  omnium 
rerum  creatarum.  Schleus.  Lex.) 

The  apostle  to  the  Hebrews  ascribes  the  work  of 
creation  to  Christ  in  the  clearest  terms.  Speaking 
of  Christ,  he  says,  "Thou  Lord,  in  the  beginning  hast 
laid  the  foundation  of  the  earth;  and  the  heavens  are 
the  works  of  thine  hands.  They  shall  perish,  but 
thou  remainest;  and  they  all  shall  wax  old,  as  doth  a 
garment;  and  as  a  vesture  shalt  thou  fold  them  up, 
and  they  shall  be  changed;  but  thou  art  the  same,  and 
thy  years  shall  not  fail."  The  connexion  justly  admits 
of  application  to  no  other  than  to  Christ.  But  the 
prophet  says,  "The  gods  that  have  not  made  the  heav- 
ens and  the  earth  shall  perish."  This  makes  a  visible 
distinction  between  Christ  and  the  gods  of  this  world. 
The  same,  which  the  apostle  applies  to  Christ, 
the  Psalmist  applies  to  God.  If,  what  the  Psalmist 
says  has  any  weight  in  proof  that  God  created  the 


CHRIST    THE    AUTHOR    OF    CREATION.  113 

world,  it  has  the  same  weight  of  proof  that  Christ 
created  the  world.  The  whole  declaration  is  explicit. 
It  contains  none  of  those  prepositions  (liu,  fv,  &c.) 
•which  have  been  construed  to  answer  any  purpose. 
If  plain  language  has  any  weight,  there  is  proof  that 
the  Son  is  the  Creator  of  the  world.  "Some  have 
been  willing  to  think,  and  bold  enough  to  say,  that 
these  four  verses  were  fraudulently  added,  and  were 
not  originally  a  part  of  this  epistle.  But  all  the  copies 
and  ancient  versions  of  this  epistle  retain  these  four 
verses;  so  that  any  pretence  of  forgery  or  interpola- 
tion does  but  expose  the  man  that  makes  it,  and  the 
cause  that  needs  it." 

Many  other  texts  have  a  direct  bearing  upon  this 
subject,  and  prove  that  the  sacred  scriptures  attribute 
the  work  of  creation  to  Jesus  Christ.  Notwithstand- 
ing the  scriptures  are  so  explicit  on  this  subject,  a  ques- 
tion has  arisen  whether  Christ  created  the  world  by 
his  own  inherent  power,  or  whether  he  created  it 
merely  as  an  instrument,  or  by  power  delegated  to 
him.  If  he  was  divine,  or  if  divine  nature  was  united 
with  his  humanity,  he  performed,  by  his  own  power, 
the  works  attributed  to  him.  If  he  was  not  divine,  or 
if  this  union  did  not  subsist,  he  performed  his  works 
by  delegated,  or  borrowed  power.  God  maketh  his 
angels  ministering  spirits.  He  sometimes  deputizes 
man  to  act  in  a  more  elevated  sphere  than  that,  for 
which  his  native  powers  had  qualified  him.  The 
prophets  and  apostles  were  endued  in  this  manner. 
God  led  Israel  by  the  hand  of  Moses.  By  him  he 
wrought  miracles.  By  his  prophets  and  apostles  he 
also  wrought  miracles.  If  there  be  no  difference  in 
the  nature,  decree  and  circumstances  between  their 
works,  and  the  works  of  Christ,  then  it  may  be  admit- 
ted that  he  was  but  a  man,  furnished  with  extraordina- 
ry power,  as  were  the  prophets  and -apostles. 

When  they  exhibited  signs  and  wonders;  when  they 
performed  works,  which  exceeded  the  efforts  of  human 
power,  they  never  pretended  to  do  them  in  their  own 
15 


114       CHRIST  THE  AUTHOR  OF  CREATION. 

names,  nor  bj  their  own  native  strength.  When  they 
wrought  miracles,  they  addressed  a  power  foreign 
from  themselves.  When  Paul  had  healed  a  cripple  by 
saying,  "Stand  upright  on  thy  {eet,''''  the  Lycaonians 
reputed  him  as  a  god;  and  would  have  offered  him  sac- 
rifice. But  he  denied  all  claim  to  divine  honors;  all 
claim  to  anything  above  humanity.  When  any  proph- 
et or  apostle  wrought  miracles,  there  was  always 
clear  and  decided  evidence  that  he  acted  entirely  under 
authority;  that  he  acted  under  the  operation  of  a 
power,  which  was  occasionally  communicated  to  him 
for  special  purposes. 

But  Christ  performed  greater  works.  He  performed 
them  with  higher  authority,  and  under  different  cir- 
cumstances. "Thou  Lord  in  the  beginning  hast  laid 
the  foundation  of  the  earth;  and  the  heavens  are  the 
works  of  thine  hands.  All  things  were  made  by  him 
and  without  him  was  not  any  thing  made  that  was 
made."  The  first  of  these  two  passages  was  not  design- 
ed to  convey  the  idea  that  Christ  created  the  world 
exclusively  of  the  Father  and  Holy  Spirit.  In  the 
history  of  the  creation  it  is  said,  ^'In  the  beginning 
God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth."  It  is  wor- 
thy of  notice,  that  the  original  word  in  this  text  ren- 
dered God,  is  in  the  plural  number;  and  is  used  uni- 
formly in  the  plural  number  through  the  whole  history 
of  the  creation.  This  plural  noun  embraces  the  divine 
nature  generally.  It  embraces  the  Father,  the  Son 
and  the  Holy  Spirit.  Creation  is  ascribed  to  them 
collectively;  it  is  also  ascribed  to  them  individually, 
(Heb.  1:2.  John  1:3.  Psalm  33:6,  and  104:30.) 
There  appears  to  be  no  ground  for  ascribing  the  work 
of  creation  to  the  Father  exclusively,  primarily,  or 
officially.  There  appears  to  be  no  ground  for  ascrib- 
ing it  to  the  Son,  or  to  the  Spirit,  under  either  of  these 
qualifications.  All  those  works,  recorded  in  the  scrip- 
tures, which  do  not  immediately  and  directly  include 
the  work  of  redemption,  are  attributed  to  God,  to  di- 
vine nature  in  plurality,  without  special  regard  to  dis- 


CHRIST    THE    AUTHOR    OF    CREATION.  115 

tinction  of  character,  of  order,  or  of  office.  They  are, 
of  course,  attributed  with  the  strictest  propriety  either 
to  the  Father,  the  Son,  or  the  Holy  Spirit.  There  is 
design,  wise  design  in  exhibiting  the  works  of  creation 
in  this  manner.  It  conveys  the  idea  that  there  is  but 
one  Godj  that  there  is  a  distinct  plurahty  in  the  divine 
nature;  that  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit 
are  divine;  that  they  are  united  in  nature;  in  design; 
and  in  operation. 

When  the  scriptures  represent  God  creating  the 
world  by  Jesus  Christ,  they  do  not  design  that  it  should 
be  understood  that  Christ  was  a  mere  instrument  in 
the  work.  The  original  word,  (lH)  translated  by^  often 
signifies,  or  implies  in  the  sacred  scriptures  an  efficient 
cause  of  any  kind.  Consequently,  this  mode  of  expres- 
sion helps  to  prove  that  Christ,  by  his  own  inherent 
power  was  author  of  creation.  The  same  original 
word  often  signifies,  and  is  often  translated  in.  With 
this  signification  of  the  word,  it  would  be  understood 
that  God  created  the  world  in  Jesus  Christ.  This 
would  be  an  evidence  of  the  union,  which  subsists  in 
the  divine  plurality. 

There  is  the  clearest  evidence  that  the  sacred  writ- 
ings attribute  creation  to  Jesus  Christ.  This  forms 
an  argument  to  prove  that  he  is  divine;  for  the  scrip- 
tures attribute  divinity  to  the  Creator.  "The  invisi- 
ble things  of  him  from  the  creation  of  the  world  are 
clearly  seen,  being  understood  by  the  things  that  are 
made,  even  his  eternal  power  and  Godhead."  As  the 
works  of  creation  prove  the  eternal  power  and  divinity 
of  their  Creator;  and  as  Christ  is  their  Creator,  it  fol- 
lows that  he  possesses  eternal  power  and  divinity. 
"Hezekiah  prayed  before  the  Lord  and  said,  O  Lord 
God  of  Israel,  which  dwellest  between  the  cherubims, 
thou  art  the  God,  even  thou,alone  of  all  the  kingdoms 
of  the  earth;  thou  hast  made  heaven  and  earth."  In 
this  passage  Hezekiah  ascribes  the  works  of  creation 
to  God  alone.  As  the  same  works  are  ascribed  to 
Christ,  it  follows  that  Christ  is  God.   "Thus  saith  the 


116  CHRIST   THE   AUTHOR    OF   CREATION. 

Lord,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel  and  his  Maker, — I  have 
made  the  earth  and  created  man  upon  it;  I,  even  my 
hands,  have  stretched  out  the  heavens  and  all  their 
host  have  I  commanded."  Whether  the  names  Lord, 
Holy  One,  and  Maker,  in  this  text  stand  for  the  Trinity 
or  not,  creation  is  attributed  to  the  Lord;  to  the  Holy 
One  of  Israel.  As  Christ  is  proved  to  be  Creator,  it 
follows  that  Christ  is  Lord,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel. 

There  is  no  necessity  of  supposing  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  a  subordinate  or  instrumental  agent  in  the  work  of 
creation.  If  it  be  admitted  that  there  is  a  plurality 
in  the  divine  nature,  it  is  easy  to  perceive  that  the 
creation  of  all  things  may  be  attributed  with  equal 
propriety  to  the  Son,  as  to  the  Father. 

It  is  not  necessary  that  God  should  employ  an  in- 
strument in  the  work  of  creation.  Almighty  power 
needs  no  foreign  aid.  He  can  and  does  accomplish  all 
his  pleasure,  and  none  can  stay  his  hand.  There  is 
no  intimation  in  the  history  of  creation  that  God  em- 
ployed a  subordinate  agent.  "In  the  beginning  God 
created  the  heavens  and  the  earth.  God  said,  let  there 
be  light  and  there  was  light."  There  is  not  the  least  ap- 
pearance of  any  medium  through  which  he  operated. 

In  the  formation  of  the  first  creature,  it  is  impossible 
that  God  should  operate  through  the  medium  of  any 
agent.  There  was  a  date  in  duration,  in  which  there 
was  no  agent,  or  active  medium  between  self-existence 
and  non-existence.  The  first  creature,  therefore,  was 
necessarily  made  by  the  immediate  act  of  God.  There 
is  no  intimation  given  in  the  scriptures  that  the  first 
creature  was  formed  in  a  manner  different  from  suc- 
ceeding creatures.  It  is  written,  "^//  things  were 
made  by  him,  (i.  e.  Clirist;)  and  without  him  was  not 
any  thing  made  that  was  made.  As  he  made  all 
things,  he,  of  course,  made  the  first  creature.  If  he 
made  the  first  creature  without  an  instrumental  medi- 
um, he  was  able  to  make  them  all  in  the  same  manner. 

It  is  absurd  to  suppose  that  Christ  was  a  created 
medium,  through  which  God  made  the  world;  because, 


CHRIST   THE    AUTHOR    OF    CREATION.  1  1 7 

Without  him  was  not  any  thing  made  that  was  made. 
If  Christ  were  a  mere  creature,  he  must,  if  this  text 
be  true,  have  created  himself,  which  is  absurd.  If 
God  used  a  medium  in  the  formation  of  the  world, 
it  must  have  been  a  created  one.  If  he  made  it  a 
passive  instrument,  the  work  could  not  propej'ly  be 
attributed  to  the  instrumental  medium.  If  God  should 
make  an  absolute  impartation  of  creative  power  to  a 
creature,  he  would  divest  himself  of  that  power;  and 
the  creature  would  possess  the  prerogative  of  divinity. 
Such  inconsistency  proves  that  God  did  not  create  the 
world  through  the  medium  of  a  subordinate  agent, 
but  that  he  made  it  immediately  by  his  own  power.* 

*  Mr.  Yates  maintains  "that  when  a  New  Testament  writer  employs  the  pre- 
posilion  AlA,  (witli  a  genitive  case)  to  point  out  the  cause  of  any  effect,  he 
means  the  instrumeittal cause,  and  refers  to  some  other  being,  either  expressly 
mentioned,  or  contemplated,  who  is  considered  as  ihejirst,  or  original  cause." 
In  view  of  this  principle  let  us  examine  a  few  of  many  texts.  "It  must  needs 
be  tliatofilencescome;  l)ut  woe  to  that  man,  by  whom  {SI  ou)  the  offence  cometh," 
Mat.  18:  7.  This  learned  Unitarian  remarks  thus  upon  this  passage.  " li  tnnst 
needs  be." — "Who  imposed  the  necessity;'  Undoubtedly,  the  Almighty  Creator 
and  Governor  of  the  universe."  We  would  inquire,  was  this  imposed  necessity 
natural,  or  moral?  If  it  was  moral,  how  could  it  be  imposed?  Or  liow  could  it 
consist  with  the  efficiency  of  an  extraneous  "original  cause.''"  If  the  necessity  was 
natural,  if  it  was  imposed  by  "the  Almighty  Creator  and  Governor  of  the  uni- 
verse—as the  first  or  original  cause,"  what  then  is  man;'  He  is  but  the  medium, 
or  instrument,  through  which  divine  power  produced  the  off'ence.  What!  Is 
God  then  the  author  of  sin?  Has  the  subject  come  to  this  dilemma,  that  Christ 
possessed  creative,  i.  e.  divine  power,  or  moral  evil  must  be  traced  up  to  God,  as 
its  original  cause?  I  would  rather  believe  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity,  than  believe 
that  the  holy  nature  of  God  is  the  "original  cause"  of  moral  evil. 

"Woe  to  that  man,  by  whom  {fi  iu)  the  Son  of  man  is  betrayed,"  Mat.  26:  24, 
"Was  Judas  also,"  (says  Mr.  Yates)  "an  original  cause!  Was  then  the  salvation 
of  the  world  by  the  death  of  Christ  left  to  depend  upon  the  supreme  power  and 
uncontrolled  discretion  of  an  insignificant  mortal?  The  scriptures  teach  a  very 
contrary  doctrine.  He  was  betrayed  by  the  determinate  counsel  and  forekno-wl- 
ed^e  of  God." 

"By  one  man,  sin  entered  into  the  world,  and  death  by  sin,"  Rom.  5:12. 
"The  clear  meaning  of  the  apostle's  words  (says  Mr.  Yates)  is,  that  sin  entered 
into  the  world  by  the  decree  of  God,  through  one  man  as  his  instrument,  and 
death  through  sin." 

This  learned  Unitarian  appears  to  be  unwilling  to  allow  that  a  creature  is  the 
efficient  cause  of  any  effect,  but  that  he  is  only  a  medium,  through  which  divine 
power  operates.  We  shall  not  here  examine  whether  this  hypothesis  destroys 
moral  agency  or  not.  But  he  does  not  appear  to  make  a  distinction  between  the 
natural  powers  of  a  creature,  and  those  jmwers,  which  are  supernaturally  com- 
municated. He  does  not  appear  to  distinguish  the  nature  of  the  act  of  Moses  in 
killing  an  Egyptian,  from  that  of  dividing  the  Red  Sea.  In  the  latter  case  he  was 
the  iustrumental,  in  the  former,  he  was  the  efficient  cause.  The  conclusion  we 
would  draw  from  the  foregoing  remarks  is  this,  that  Christ,  in  the  work  of  cre- 
ation, and  in  the  performance  of  miracles,  wrought  by  his  own  natural  power, 
and  not  by  power  which  was  extraordinarily  communicated  to  him;  and  it  may 
be  added,  the  Greek  particle,  which  is  connected  with  him  as  agent  does  not 
militate  against  this  opinion. 


118  CHRIST    THE    AUTHOR    OF    CREATION. 

Had  the  Greek  preposition  TnO  been  used  in  connexion  with  Christ  instead 
of  tf}a,  the  case  would  not  be  materially  different,  as  Mr.  Yates  supposes.  For 
this  preposition  is  frequently  connected  with  created  beings  to  express  their 
efficiency.    See  Mat.  2:  16.    iMat.  3:  6,  13.  Mat.  4:  !,  and  many  other  places. 

In  the  case  under  consideration,  there  appears  to  be  a  similarity  between  the 
idiom  of  the  Greek,  and  the  idiom  of  our  own  language  We  say,  an  illustrious 
deed  is  performed  by  a  certain  man;  and  we  say,  a  certain  man  has  performed 
an  illustrious  deed.  We  consider  the  expressions  equivalent.  In  like  manner, 
it  appears  to  be  the  same  thing,  whether  it  be  said,  all  things  were  made  by 
Christ,  or  he  made  all  things.  In  1  Cor.  1:9,  the  preposition  tf/st  is  connected 
with  God.  "God  is  faithful,  by  whom  ye  were  called  into  the  fellowship  of  his 
Son  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord."  This  shews  that  this  Greek  particle  is  connected 
with  an  efficient  cause.  Also  in  Heb.  2:10,  i\  is  connected  with  the  Father. 
"For  it  became  him,  for  whom  are  all  things,  and  by  -whom  (/«  ci/)  are  all  things," 
&c.    This  latter  text,  Mr.  Yates  has  passed  unnoticed. 


CHRIST  POSSESSES  DIVINE  AUTHORITY. 


Christ,  in  union  of  operation  with  the  Father  and  the 
Holj  Spirit,  created  the  world;  and  held  authority  in 
common  with  them.  Had  creatures  preserved  order, 
and  yielded  obedience  to  their  Creator,  it  is  probable 
that  the  distinctions  in  the  divine  nature,  which  are 
manifested  by  the  titles  and  characters  of  Father,  Son 
and  Holy  Ghost,  would  have  lain  forever  concealed 
from  the  view  of  created  intelligences.  Revelation 
has  proved  that  it  was  the  divine  purpose  to  repair 
the  ruins  of  the  fall,  and  subdue  all  enemies.  To 
effectuate  this  purpose  it  was  necessary  that  different 
offices  should  be  established,  and  diiferent  works  be 
assigned  to  each  of  the  sacred  Trinity.  This  method 
is  said  to  be  necessary^  because  this  method  was  chosen; 
is  revealed;  and  is  in  actual  operation.  Authority,  by 
reciprocal  consent,  was  given  to  each  to  act  in  his 
respective  office.  This  giving  and  receiving  of  author- 
ity implies  no  superiority  of  nature  in  one;  nor  does  it 
imply  any  essential  loss  or  acquisition  of  power  in  the 
other.  Christ's  official,  or  mediatorial  authority  com- 
menced immediately  after  the  apostasy.  No  commu- 
nications have  been  made  from  heaven  to  this  fallen 
world,  excepting  by  him. 

The  Son  of  God  did  not  exercise  mediatorial  author- 
ity to  the  greatest  extent  till  after  his  resurrection. 
The  union  of  human  and  divine  nature  was  essential 
to  the  complete  filling  of  this  office.  Though  there 
was  no  alteration  in  Christ's  divinity  in   the  diilercnt 


120  CHRIST    POSSESSES  D  I  VINE    AUTHORITY. 

stages  of  the  work  of  redemption;  yet  there  was 
alteration  in  his  humanity.  He  was  made  perfect 
through  suffering,  (Heb.  2:10.)  When  he  had  suffered 
the  pains  of  death  and  had  risen  to  life,  he  was  fully 
capacitated;  and  he  received  authority  for  every  part 
of  the  work  of  the  mediatorial  office.  It  was  then 
he  said,  "AH  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in 
earth."  This  text  ought  to  have  been  translated.  All 
authority  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in  earth. 
His  divine  power  always  was  and  always  will  be  the 
same.  But  his  mediatorial  authority  had  its  beginning; 
its  progress;  and  it  will  have  its  consummation.  When 
he  shall  have  raised  the  dead;  when  he  shall  have 
"gathei'ed  together  in  one  the  children  of  God;"  when 
all  things  are  put  under  his  feet,  then  will  he  give  up 
his  kingdom,  his  mediatorial  kingdom  to  God,  even  the 
Father.  Having  accomplished  his  mediatorial  work, 
having  given  up  those,  whom  the  Father  had  given 
him,  he  will  relinquish  all  that  rule  and  authority, 
which  he  received.  "When all  things  shall  be  subdued 
imto  him,  then  shall  the  Son  also  himself  be  subject 
unto  him,  that  put  all  things  under  him,  that  God  may 
be  all  in  all."  Christ  may  be  said  to  be  subject  to  him, 
who  put  all  things  under  him  in  a  comparative  view. 
In  comparison  with  that  mediatorial  authority,  which 
he  once  had,  but  which  he  relinquishes  at  the  judg- 
ment day,  he  may  be  said  to  be  subject;  or  subjects 
himself  to  that  state,  which  he  before  occupied. 
When  the  work  of  redemption  is  completed;  when 
that  kingdom,  which  was  purchased  with  the  price  of 
blood  is  given  up,  there  will  be  no  need  of  the  inter- 
vention of  a  Mediator;  those  offices,  which  are  pecu- 
liar to  the  work  of  redemption  will  cease;  and  God  in 
plurality  (D^1^N)  who  created  the  world  will  hold 
the  reins  of  government.  The  kingdom  of  saints  will 
be  an  everlasting  kingdom;  and  the  dominion  over  it, 
like  the  work  of  creation,  may,  with  strict  propriety 
be  ascribed  to  the  Father,  the  Son,  or  the  Holy  Spirit. 


CHRIST    POSSESSES    DIVINE    AUTHORITY.  121 

Thus  God  will  be   all   in  all   as   he    was   before   the 
apostasy. 

When  it  is  said  that  all  authority  is  given  unto 
Christ,  it  is  not  designed  to  convey  an  idea  that  the 
Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit  did  not  retain  a?2i/  author- 
ity. The  import  of  the  text  is,  Christ  received  all 
authority,  which  was  necessary  to  eflfectuate  the  work 
of  redemption;  that  work,  for  which  he  came  into  the 
world.  The  word  all  is  frequently  used  in  the  scrip- 
tures in  a  restricted  sense. 

It  is  necessary  to  take  a  more   particular  view  ot 
Christ's  authority,  as  it  is   exercised  in   the  various 
departments  of  the  mediatorial  office.     He  exercises 
authority  over  holy  and  fallen  angels.     As  they  both 
affect  his  kingdom,  it  is  pertinent  to  view  his  dominion 
in  relation  to  them.     "All  authority  is  given  unto   me 
in   heaven."     If  this   ie-^t  does  not  extend  Christ's 
authority  to  fallen  spirits,   other  passages  assign  him 
this  extent  of  authority.     It  was  early  predicted  that 
Christ  should  bruise  the  serpent's  head.     At  a  time 
the  devil,  under  advantageous  circumstances,i!empted 
Christ.     But  with  authority  he  repelled  him  and  pre- 
vailed against  him.     At  various  times  he  cast  out  evil 
spirits,  and  sent  them  whither  he  pleased.     At  a  time 
they  called  upon  his  name,  that  he  would  not  torment 
them;  and  they  inquired  of  him  whether  he  had  come 
to  torment  them  before  the  time;   which  implied  that 
there    would    be   a   time,  in  which   he    would    have 
authority  to  torment  them.     When  the  seventy  re- 
turned  from    their   mission,    they  said    unto  Christ, 
"Lord,  even  the  devils  are  subject  unto  us  through 
thy  name."     Christ  took  upon  himself  flesh  and  blood 
and  suffered  death,    that  through  death  he  might  de- 
stroy him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is,  the  devil. 
Christ  has    also    authority   over   the    holy  angels. 
God  set  his  Son  "far  above  all  principality  and  power, 
and  might  and  dominion,  and  every  name  that  is  named, 
not  only  in   this  world,   but  also   in  that  which  is  to 
come."     When  Christ   was  upon  earth  angels  minis- 
IG 


122  CHRIST    POSSESSES    DIVINE    AUTHORITY. 

tered  unto  him.  When  he  shall  come  to  raise  the 
dead  and  judge  the  world,  angels  will  attend  him; 
and  he  will  send  them  to  gather  the  elect  from  the 
four  winds.  The  apostle  Paul  speaking  of  Christ 
says.  "Who  is  gone  into  heaven,  and  is  on  the  right 
hand  of  God;  angels  and  authorities  and  powers  being 
made  subject  unto  him.  God  hath  highly  exalted 
him  and  given  him  a  name,  which  is  above  every  name; 
that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of 
things  in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under 
the  earth."  The  holy  angels  are  concerned  with  the 
work  of  redemption.  They  desire  to  look  into  it. 
They  are  ministering  spirits,  "sent  forth  to  minister 
for  them,  who  shall  be  heirs  of  salvation."  They  are 
employed  by  the  great  Head  of  the  Church  as  instru- 
ments in  his  work. 

Christ's  authority  in  heaven  extends  to  the  send- 
ing of  the  Holy  Spirit  into  this  world  to  aid  the  work 
of  redemption.  John  the  Baptist  foretold  that  Jesus 
would  baptize  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  Christ  himself 
promised,  that  after  his  departure  from  the  world,  he 
would  send  the  Holy  Spirit.  "When  the  Comforter 
is  come,  whom  I  will  send  unto  you  from  the  Father, 
even  the  Spirit  of  truth,  which  proceedeth  from  the 
Father,  he  shall  testify  of  me.  It  is  expedient  for 
you  that  I  go  away;  for  if  I  go  not  away,  the  Com- 
forter will  not  come  unto  you;  but  if  I  depart,  I  will 
send  him  unto  you."  After  Christ's  ascension,  and 
agreeably  to  his  declaration,  he  sent  the  Holy  Spirit. 
At  a  time,  when  Peter  was  preaching  Christ,  "the 
Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them  that  heard  the  word." 
On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  the  apostles  were 
together,  "there  appeared  unto  them  cloven  tongues, 
as  of  fire,  and  it  sit  upon  each  of  them.  And  they 
were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost."  These  texts 
prove  that  Christ  has  authority  to  send  the  Holy 
Spirit  into  the  hearts  of  sinners  for  their  conversion; 
and  into  the  hearts  of  saints  for  their  comfort. 


CHRIST    POSSESSES    DIVINE    AUTHORITY.  123 

All  the  prophets  and  apostles,  which   have  taught 
mankind  the  will  of  heaven,  were  sent  by  Christ,  and 
were  under  his   authority.     It    was   Christ,   who   ap- 
peared unto  Moses,  and  sent  him  to  lead   Israel  out  of 
Egypt.     It  was  Christ,  who   sent   the   Spirit  of  pro- 
phecy  to   the   prophets,   by    which  they   taught  the 
people,  and   foretold  events.     After  Christ  appeared 
in  the  world,  in  human  flesh,  he  selected  men,  quali- 
fied them  and  commissioned  them  to  preach  the  gos- 
pel.     When  Christ  was  teaching  the  multitude   and 
his  disciples,  he  said,  "Neither  be  ye  called  masters; 
for  one  is  your  Master,  even  Christ."     Here  the  Sa- 
vior claims  an  authority  over  men,  which  he  did  not 
allow  to  men.     He  called  his    twelve   disciples   unto 
him;  gave  them  power  against  unclean  spirits,  to  cast 
them  out,  and  to   heal    all  manner  of  sickness.     He 
sent  them  forth;   he  directed  them  where  to  go;  what 
to  preach,   and  he  foretold  what   would  befal  them. 
He  declares  himself  to  be  the  Door,  through  which 
his    shepherds   shall    go  in    unto  the  sheep.       This 
denotes  that  they  derive  all  their  authority  from  him. 
The  apostle  Paul  acknowledged  that  he  received  his 
commission  from  the  Lord  Jesus.  "That  I  might  finish 
my  course  with  joy,  and  the  ministry,  which  I  have 
received  of  the  Lord  Jesus.'''*     The  apostle  Paul   ex- 
presses   entire     dependence    on  Christ,  for  spiritual 
strength.     He   says,  "I    can  do  all    things;"  but   he 
adds,  ''Hhrougk  Christ  strengthening  me."     When   he 
besought  the  Lord  that  the  messenger  of  Satan  might 
depart  from    him,  the   Lord  answered,  "My  grace  is 
sufficient  for  thee;  for  my  strength  is  made   perfect  in 
weakness."     The  apostle  adds,  "most  gladly  there- 
fore  will  I  rather  glory  in    my   infirmities,    that  the 
'power  of  Christ  may  rest  upon   me."     He  acknowl- 
edges himself  and  the  other  apostles  to  be  ambassa- 
dors for  Christ.     Paul  and  the  other  apostles,  in  their 
salutations   to  the   churches    to    which    they   wrote, 
style   themselves   the  servants  or  apostles  of  Jesus 
Christ. 


124  CHRIST    POSSESSES    DIVINE    AUTHORITY. 

The  aposlles  not  only  received  their  ministry  from 
the  Lord  Jesus,  and  acted  under  him;  but  they  must 
give  an  account  to  him.  The  Master  of  these  servants 
will  return  and  reckon  with  them.  They  must  stand 
before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ.  The  Lord  said 
to  his  disciples,  "Watch  ye  therefore,  and  pray  always 
that  ye  may  be  accounted  worthy.... to  stand  before 
the  Son  of  man."  The  apostle  Paul  said,  "To  me  it 
is  a  very  small  thing  that  I  should  be  judged  of  you 
or  of  man's  judgment.  He,  who  judgeth  me  is  the 
Lord;"  that  is,  Christ. 

Christ  possesses  a  decided  and  a  distinguishing  supe- 
riority over  his  prophets,  priests,  and  apostles.  The 
apostle,  contrasting  him  with  Moses,  gives  him  a  strik- 
ing pre-eminence.  "This  man,  (said  he,  speaking  of 
Christ)  was  counted  worthy  of  more  glory  than  Moses, 
inasmuch  as  he,  who  hath  builded  the  house,  hath 
more  honor  than  the  house."  If  the  prophets  had  the 
distinguishing  honor  of  foretelling  the  advent  of  the 
Messiah,  he  had  the  greater  honor  of  being  the  object 
of  their  predictions. 

The  priesthood  under  the  law,  was  temporary  and 
mutable;  but  Christ  had  an  unchangeable  priesthood. 
The  priests,  who  attended  at  the  altar,  offered  sacri- 
fices continually  for  the  people;  and  they  first  offered 
sacrifice  for  themselves.  But  their  sacrifices  could  not 
take  away  sin.  Christ  "needed  not  as  those  high 
priests,  to  offer  up  sacrifice  first  for  his  own  sins  and 
then  for  the  people's."  "But  after  he  had  offered  one 
sacrifice  for  sins,  for  ever  sat  down  on  the  right  hand 
of  God.  For  by  one  offering  he  hath  perfected  for 
ever  them  that  are  sanctified." 

The  apostles  acknowledge  Christ's  superiority.  He 
is  the  great,  the  chief  Shepherd.  They  are  subordi- 
nate shepherds.  They  feed  the  sheep,  which  he 
purchased.  The  apostle  saith,  "we  preach  not  our- 
selves, but  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord;  and  ourselves  your 
servants  for  Jesus'  sake."     He  appeared  to  glory   in 


CHRIST   POSSESSES    DIVINE    AUTHORITY.  125 

humbling  himself,  and   in  ascribing  all  excellence   and 
authority  to  his  divine  Master. 

The  kingdom  of  Christ  will  not  be  perfected  till 
he  has  raised  the  dead.  His  mediatorial  authority 
therefore,  embraces  the  resurrection.  When  he 
was  upon  earth  he  gave  evidence  of  this  authority. 
In  several  instaiices  he  raised  the  dead.  Of  himself 
he  said,  "I  have  power  to  lay  down  my  life,  and  I 
have  power  to  take  it  again."  "Destroy  this  temple, 
and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up.  But  he  spake  of 
the  temple  of  his  body.  For  as  the  Father  raiseth 
up  the  dead,  and  quickeneth  them;  even  so  the  Son 
quickeneth  whom  he  will."  Jesus  saith  of  himself, 
"I  am  the  resurrection  and  the  life.  I  say  unto  you 
the  hour  is  coming  and  now  is,  when  the  dead  shall 
hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God;  and  they  that  hear 
shall  live."  This  is  the  testimony,  both  by  word  and 
deed,  which  Christ  has  given  of  himself  respecting  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead. 

Some  passages  of  scripture  ascribe  resurrection  of 
the  dead  to  the  Father  and  to  the  Son  indiscriminate- 
ly. "As  the  Father  raiseth  up  the  dead  and  quick- 
eneth them,  even  so  the  Son  quickeneth  whom  he 
will."  Christ,  when  he  was  upon  earth,  raised  cer- 
tain individuals  from  the  dead.  As  he  performed  this 
same  kind  of  work,  which  the  Father  had  performed; 
as  he  performed  it  in  cases,  in  which  he  ivould,  there 
was  the  highest  evidence  that  he  possessed  divine 
power  and  divine  authority.  When  the  resurrection 
is  attributed  exclusively  to  the  Son  of  God  it  is  the 
general  resurrection  at  the  last  daj. 

After  Christ  has  raised  the  dead,  he  will  sit  in  judg- 
ment, and  pass  sentence  upon  their  characters.  Christ 
saith  all  things  are  delivered  unto  me  of  my  Father. 
The  apostle  Paul  saith,  "He  hath  appointed  a  day  in 
the  which  he  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  by 
that  man,  whom  he  hath  ordained.  He  commanded 
US  to  preach  unto  the  j)cople  and  to  testify  that  it  is  he, 
which  was  ordained  of  God  to  be  the  Judge  of  quick 


1^6 


CHRIST    POSSESSES    DIVINE    AUTHORITY. 


and  dead.  We  shall  all  stand  before  the  judgtaent 
seat  of  Christ.  Before  him  shall  be  gathered  all 
nations,  and  he  shall  separate  them  one  from  another 
as  a  shepherd  divideth  the  sheep  from  the  goats. 
The  Father  judgeth  no  man  but  hath  committed  all 
judgment  unto  the  Son." 

When  Christ  passes  sentence  on  the  human  race, 
he  has  authority  to  confer  reward  on  the  righteous, 
and  inflict  punishment  on  the  wicked.  "Before  him  shall 
be  gathered  all  nations,  and  he  shall  separate  them  one 
from  another  as  a  shepherd  divideth  his  sheep  from 
the  goats.  And  he  shall  set  the  sheep  on  his  right 
hand,  but  the  goats  on  the  left.  Then  shall  the  King 
saj  unto  them  on  the  right  hand,  come  ye  blessed  of 
my  Father,  inherit  the  kingdom  prepared  for  you  from 
the  foundation  of  the  world.  Then  shall  he  say  unto 
them  on  the  left  hand,  depart  from  me,  ye  cursed  into 
everlasting  fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels. 
These  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punishment,  but 
the  righteous  into  life  eternal."  Near  the  close  of  the 
volume  of  inspiration  Christ  saith,  "Behold  I  come 
quickly  and  my  reward  is  with  me,  to  give  every  man 
as  his  work  shall  be."  Many  other  passages  might  be 
produced  in  further  proof  that  Christ  has  authority 
to  raise  the  dead  and  to  administer  retribution. 

Because  all  authority  was  given  to  the  Son;  because 
he  was  made  better  than  the  angels,  and  appointed 
heir  of  all  things;  because  the  Father  committed  all 
judgment  unto  the  Son  and  hath  ordained  him  for  this 
purpose,  it  has  been  inferred  that  he  does  not  possess 
inherent  qualifications  for  these  great  works  and  ele- 
vated offices;  that  he  is  only  constituted  to  these  works 
and  offices;  and  endued  with  divine  communications 
superior  to  those  made  to  the  prophets. 

The  great  superiority  which  Christ  holds  over  all 
the  prophets  and  apostles  affords  but  little  ground  for 
comparison.  In  comparison  with  angels,  he  hath  ob- 
tained by  inheritance  a  more  excellent  name  than  they. 
By  inheritance  be  hath  obtained  a  divine  name.     If  it 


CHRIST   POSSESSES    DIVINE   AUTHORITY.  127 

be  by  inheritance,  it  is  by  right,  not  by  favor  or  reward. 
If  the  Father  and  the  Son  are  two  separate  and  dis- 
tinct beings,  and  the  Father  should  communicate  his 
fulness  to  the  Son,  the  Son  would  possess  the  sum 
total  of  divinity;  and  the  Father  would  retain  only 
his  name,  without  one  divine  attribute.  He  would 
possess  no  power  to  recal  that  fulness,  which  he  had 
imparted.  To  have  authority  over  all  things  in  heav- 
en and  in  earth;  to  have  the  government  of  angels 
and  the  power  of  sending  the  Holy  Spirit;  to  have  the 
superintendence  of  the  Church  universal  and  the  direc- 
tion of  all  its  ministers;  to  raise  the  dead;  to  judge  the 
world;  to  distribute  reward  and  punishment  propor- 
tionate to  every  character,  must  require  attributes, 
mediately  or  immediately,  which  are  divine.  Christ, 
in  all  his  works,  appeared  to  act  by  his  own  power. 
His  language  was,  "I  will,  be  thou  clean.  Arise  and 
walk.  Thy  sins  are  forgiven  thee.  Young  man,  I 
say  unto  thee  arise.  Lazarus,  come  forth."  This  is 
not  the  language  of  dependence.  This  is  not  the  lan- 
guage of  borrowed  power.  When  the  apostles 
wrought  miracles,  they  attributed  the  efficiency  to 
Jesus  Christ;  and  they  wrought  in  his  name.  When 
Peter  was  about  to  heal  a  lame  man,  he  said,  "In  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ  of  Nazareth,  rise  up  and  walk.'" 
To  Eneas,  who  was  sick  of  the  palsy,  he  said,  "Jesus 
Christ  maketh  thee  whole."  Before  he  raised  Dorcas, 
he  prayed.  When  Paul  healed  a  lame  man,  and  the 
people  reputed  him  as  a  god,  he  disclaimed  the  title, 
and  arrogated  no  superior  power  to  himself.  It  would 
have  been  highly  improper  for  them  to  attribute  their 
efficiency  to  Christ,  if  he  had  not  an  efficient  power 
in  himself. 

It  is  hard  to  conceive  why  God  should  appoint  a 
creature;  vest  him  with  authority;  endue  him  with 
powers  for  the  purpose  of  perforuiing  works  and  sus- 
taining offices  in  the  scheme  of  redemption,  which 
divinity  alone  can  perform  and  sustain.  When  the 
supreme  power  of  a  nation  appoints  a  minister  to  treat 


128  CHRIST   POSSESSES    DIVINE    AUTHORITY 

with  another,  he  vests  him  with  authority  for  the  pur- 
pose; but  he  furnishes  him  with  no  extraordinary  quali- 
fications. When  God  appointed  the  Son  to  mediate 
between  him  and  a  rebelHous  world,  he  gave  him 
authority  to  do  the  duties  of  that  office.  But  he  com- 
municated to  him  no  divine  powers.  For  he  needed  no 
such  communication.  He  was  in  his  own  nature,  ade- 
quate to  all  the  works,  which  were  peculiar  to  a  Re- 
deemer. He  knew  the  will  of  the  Father;  and  what 
would  satisfy  his  law.  He  knew  all  things  in  heaven 
and  on  earth.  He  knew  what  was  in  man;  and  he 
selected  and  qualified  individuals,  who  acted  under 
him  in  the  great  work  of  salvation.  He  had  power 
in  himself  not  only  to  lay  down  his  own  life  and  take 
it  again;  but  he  had  power  to  raise  the  dead;  and 
destroy  him,  that  had  the  power  of  death.  As  he 
knows  all  things,  and  as  he  is  righteous,  he  is  competent 
to  pass  final  judgment  upon  the  human  race,  and  dis- 
tribute reward  and  punishment.  Having  power  in 
his  own  nature  to  do  these  things,  he  did  not  need 
that  any  communications  of  divine  power  should  be 
made  to  him.  He  only  needed  authority,  that  is,  the 
appointment  or  consent  of  the  Father  to  act  in  this 
capacity. 

There  appears  to  be  no  necessity  that  God  should 
deputise  a  creature  to  do  those  divine  works  and  sus- 
tain those  divine  offices,  which  Christ  did  and  sustained. 
It  appears  that  God  might  as  well  directly  commission 
his  ambassadors  to  publish  the  gospel  and  officiate  in 
the  church,  as  select  one  from  his  creatures  and  author- 
ize him  to  commission  them  for  this  important  work. 
When  the  chief  magistrate  of  a  state  or  nation  appoints 
officers  to  act  in  various  departments,  and  authorizes 
them  to  appoint  subordinate  officers,  it  is  because  he 
cannot  attend  to  so  great  extent  of  business  himself. 
But  the  divine  Being  is  not  circumscribed  in  his  nature, 
nor  limited  in  his  attributes.  His  eye  discerns  all 
things.  His  power  sustains  all  things.  His  wisdom 
directs  all  things.     He  needs  no  assistance.     He  admits 


CHRIST    POSSESSES    DIVINE    AUTHORITY.  129 

no  partner  on  his  throne.  He  communicates  no  divine 
prerogative  to  his  creatures.  It  is  not  disputed  that 
God  employs  agents;  that  he  employs  angels  and  men. 
But  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  employs  one  to  send 
another.  If  apostles  were  authorized  to  ordain  others 
to  the  work  of  the  Christian  ministry,  they  ordained 
those  only,  who  appeared  to  them  to  be  sent  of  God. 
It  is  as  easy  for  the  divine  Being  to  send  ambassadors 
by  his  iaimediate  power,  as  it  would  be  to  send  them 
mediately  by  a  delegated  agent.  It  would  be  as  easy 
for  him  to  raise  the  dead  and  judge  the  world  by  his 
own  immediate  act,  as  it  would  be  to  do  the  same 
through  the  medium  of  one  of  his  creatures. 

There  appears  to  be  a  striking  impropriety  that 
God  should  ordain  any  one  of  his  creatures  to  do  the 
works,  and  to  do  them  in  the  manner,  in  which  Christ 
did  them.  As  great  works  as  ever  have  been  done 
are  attributed  to  Christ;  and  there  are  no  works  to 
be  done,  which  are  mentioned  in  the  scriptures,  greater 
than  those  which  he  will  do.  These  works  he  did, 
or  will  do,  in  his  own  name  and  by  his  own  power. 
When  any  of  mankind  have  performed  works  superior 
to  human  power,  they  gave  decided  evidence  that  the 
power  was  of  God.  If  God  communicated  to  Christ  a 
power  to  work  in  his  own  name,  he  communicated  an 
independent  power.  This  is  an  essential  attribute  of 
the  Deity.  It  is  impossible  to  communicate  divine 
attributes.  As  well  may  divine  nature  be  destroyed, 
as  divine  attributes  be  communicated. 

Many  things  are  said  of  Christ,  which  appear  to 
give  him  an  inferiority  to  the  Father.  He  increased 
in  wisdom.  Speaking  of  the  end  of  the  world  he 
says,  "Of  that  day  and  that  hour  knoweth  no  man,  no 
not  the  angels,  which  are  in  heaven,  neither  the  Son, 
but  the  Father."  "I  seek  not  mine  own  will,  but  the 
will  of  the  Father,  which  hath  sent  me."  The  time 
will  come,  when  he  will  give  up  all  authority  and  him- 
self become  subject.  If  these  and  the  like  passages 
gave  the  only  characteristic  features  of  the  Savior,  it 
17 


130  CHRIST    POSSESSES    DIVINE    AUTHORITY. 

might  well  be  supposed  that  he  was  inferior,  infinitely 
inferior  to  the  Father.  But  other  texts  attribute  to 
hira  the  highest  degree  of  knowledge;  they  attribute 
to  him  every  divine  attribute.  They  not  only  style 
him  King;  but  they  give  him  a  kingdom;  yea,  an  ever- 
lasting doiT.inion.  When  Christ  is  viewed  in  his 
humanity  and  in  his  mediatorial  office,  these  difficulties, 
these  5ee7nw^  contrarieties  vanish.  "The  man  Christ 
Jesus  increased  in  knowledge  and  wisdom.  When  he 
was  baptized,  the  Holy  Ghost  descended  upon  him. 
When  he  departed  from  Jordan  he  was  full  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  He  was  led  by  the  Spirit  into  the  wil- 
derness. God  gave  the  Spirit,  not  by  measure  unto 
him.  He  anointed  him  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above 
his  fellows."  These  texts  give  abundant  evidence  that 
the  Holy  Spirit  was  bestowed  in  more  copious  effu- 
sions upon  Jesus  than  upon  the  prophets  or  apostles. 
The  descent,  or  unction  of  the  Holy  Ghost  at  his 
baptism  was  an  inaugural  rite  to  his  office.  In  ancient 
times,  kings  and  priests  were  introduced  into  their 
respective  offices  by  the  application  of  the  anointing 
oil.  As  a  prototype  of  these  distinguished  characters 
he  w^as  visibly  introduced  into  his  office  by  the  anoint- 
ing of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Christ,  as  a  man,  needed  the 
extraordinary  iiifluence  of  the  Spirit  as  much  as  any 
king,  prophet,  or  priest;  and  in  the  performance  of 
the  duties  of  his  offices,  he  received  a  greater  degree 
of  the  Spirit's  influence  than  they. 

The  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost  upon  Jesus  Christ 
did  not  convey  divine  nature  to  him.  The  Son  of 
God  was  united  to  the  Son  of  man.  During  this  union 
he  received  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  After 
his  baptism,  after  his  consecration  to  his  office,  it  is 
recorded  of  him  that  he  was  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Christ,  in  his  mediatorial  office  is  subordinate  to  the 
Father.  By  mutual  consent  he  has  taken  this  place. 
But  the  order  of  offices  does  not  derogate  from  his 
divinity. 


CHRIST    POSSESSES    DIVINE    AUTHORITY.  131 

When  it  is  brought  into  one  view  that  Christ  had 
authority  over  the  angels;  authority  to  send  the  Holy 
Spirit;  authority  to  send  apostles  and  ministers,  till  the 
end  of  time,  to  preach  the  gospel  for  the  edification  of 
the  church;  authority  to  forgive  sins,  to  raise  the 
dead,  to  judge  the  world,  and  to  give  reward  and  pun- 
ishment, there  is  evidence  that  there  was  ground  in 
his  nature  for  possessing  such  authority.  There  is 
evidence  that  he  is  divine.* 

•  There  is  a  difference  between  t^oua-U  and  (Ty va^u/c ;  between  authority  and  power 
By  observing  this  difference,  we' shall  discover  additionallight  on  the  subject. 
Power  may  be  greater  than  authority;  but  authority  cannot  be,  strictly  speak- 
ing, greater  than  power.  Both  are  transferable.  Both  were  communicated  to 
the  apostles  by  the  Lord  Jesus.  They  were  enabled,  and  they  were  autliorized 
to  work  miracles.  Poiuer  wa%  communicated  to  Jesus.  In  his  human  nature 
he  was  capable  of  receiving  foreign  aid  and  support;  and  he  actually  received 
them  When  he  was  in  agony,  "there  appeared  an  angel  unto  him  From  heaven 
strengthening  him."  Peter,  preaching  to  Cornelius,  said,  *'Ye  know — how  God 
anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  power,  {S'wa.y.u.) 
This  consecrating  unction  was  communicated  to  him  at  the  time  of  his  baptism. 
The  giving  of  the  Spirit  to  him  without  measure  endued  him  with  an  ability, 
which  did  not  belong  to  his  human  nature. 

Christ,  speaking  of  his  authority,  says,  "All /(ower  {i^ouaia.)  is  given  unto  me 
in  heaven  and  in  earth."  Mat.  28:18.  "And  hmh  given  him  authority  to  ex- 
ecute judgment  also."  John  5:27.  "As  thou  hast  ^we/i  h\m.  power  (i^oiktUv) 
overall  flesh."  John  17:'2.  Other  texts  of  scripture  are  of  similar  import.  "And 
there  was  given  him  dominion  and  glory  and  a  kingdom."  Dan.  7:14.  "The 
Father  loveth  the  Son  and  hath  given  all  things  into  his  hand."  John  3:35. 
"Ail  things  are  delivered  to  mc  of  my  Father."  Luke  10:'22.  ''Thou  hast  put 
all  things  in  subjection  under  his  feet."  Heb.  2:8.  This  official  authoi-ity 
Christ  received  from  the  Father.  But  the  giving  of  authority  does  not  imply  the 
communication  of  any  new  powers.  Authority  is  a  hberty  to  exercise  one's  pow- 
ers in  a  particular  way  for  a  particular  purpose.  When  Christ  received  authority, 
it  did  not  imply  that  he  received  extraordinary  qualifications.  It  rather  implied 
that  he  possessed  the  necessary  qualifications  for  his  office.  When  Peter  spoke 
of  the  anointing  of  Jesus  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  power,  he  spoke  of  it 
in  connexion  with  his  death  and  resurrection.  It  is  natural,  therefore,  to  infer 
that  it  was  the  man,  Jesus,  who  was  thus  anointed.  The  apostle  to  the  Hebrews, 
quoting  a  passage  from  the  forty -fifth  Psalm,  describes  the  same  unction.  "God, 
even  thy  God,  hath  anointed  thee  with  oil  of  gladness  above  thy  fellows."  His  fellows 
were  prophets  and  priests,  who  wet-e  anointed  with  oil,  and  with  the  gilts  of 
the  Spirit.  It  was  only  in  respect  to  the  humanity  of  Christ,  they  could  be  call- 
ed his  fellows;  and  in  this  nature  lie  received  greater  communications  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  than  they.  But  it  was  not  in  this  nature  the  angels  of  God  were  command- 
ed to  worship  him.  It  was  not  in  this  nature  he  inherited  a  more  excellent  name 
than  they.  It  was  not  in  this  nature  he  upheld  all  things  by  the  word  of  his 
power.  It  appears,  tlierefore,  that  he  had  another  nature  besides  that  which  was 
anointed  with  tlie  Holy  Ghost  and  with  power. 

While  we  find  that  an  angel  strengthened  the  humanity  of  Christ;  and  that  the 
Spirit  communicated  to  it  a  supernatural  power,  and  that  he  received  official  au- 
thority from  the  Father,  wc  find  him  possessing  a  power,  which  appears  to  be 
underived  and  independent.  Christ  speaks  of  a  glory  he  had  with  the  Father 
before  the  world  was.  He  does  not  intimate  that  this  glory  was  given  him.  In 
the  course  of  his  address  to  his  Father,  he  says,  "The  glory,  which  thou  gavest 
me,  I  have  given  them  "  The  glory,  which  he  gave  them,  was  the  influence  of 
the  Spirit,  which  enabled  them  to  do  extraordinary  works.  The  glory,  then, 
which  was  given  him,  was  the  anointing  of  the  Holy  Ghost.    But  he  had  a  glorv 


132  CHRIST  POSSESSES    DIVINE    AUTH<i>RITY- 

prior  to  this  period;  a  glorj,  which  was  before  the  world.  This  could  not  be 
the  self  same  glory,  which  was  communicated  to  him  m  the  flesh.  Because 
glory  or  power  was  given  to  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  it  does  not  follow  that  the 
Lord  from  heaven  had  his  glory  or  power  by  gift,  or  by  derivation. 

Christ,  in  the  continuation  of  his  prayer  for  his  disciples,  says,  "Father,  I  will 
that  they  also,  whom  thou  hast  given  me  be  with  me  where  I  am,  that  they 
may  behold  my  glory,  which  thou  hast  given  me."  From  this  part  of  Christ's 
prayer,  it  has  been  inferred  that  this  glory,  which  was  given  him  was  the  same, 
which  he  had  with  the  Father  before  the  world  was.  Whether  this  is  true  or 
not,  there  is  no  apparent  connexion  between  the  premises  and  the  conclusion. 
These  glories,  which  he  mentions  in  the  different  parts  of  his  prayer  belong  to 
two  different  states,  or  periods.  One  belongs  to  that  state,  in  which  he  was  be- 
fore he  came  to  this  world;  the  other  belongs  to  that  state,  in  which  he  is  after 
he  has  returned  to  heaven  with  the  trophies  of  his  victory.  To  infer  something 
immediately  from  one  state  respecting  the  other,  is  very  far  from  correct  reason- 
ing. The  scriptures  state  that  he  is  to  receive  glory  in  consequence  of  his  incar- 
nation and  humiliation.  The  apostle  Paul,  speaking  of  him  in  the  form  of  a  ser- 
Tant,  and  obedient  unto  death,  saith,  "Wherefore  God  also  hath  highly  exalted  him, 
and  given  him  a  name,  which  is  above  every  name,  that  at  the  name  of  Jesus  every 
knee  should  bow."  Again  he  saith,  "We  see  Jesus,  who  was  made  a  little  lower 
than  the  angels,  for  the  suffering  of  death,  crowned  with  glory  and  honor."  From 
this  statement  of  the  apostle  it  appears,  that  Christ  has  a  glory  since  his  incarna- 
tion, which  he  had  not  before;  and  that  he  receives  this  glory  as  a  reward  for  his 
work  of  redemption.  From  this  view  of  the  subject  it  appears  that  Christ  has 
an  essential  glory,  which  he  originally  had  with  the  Father;  and  that  he  has  an 
acquired  glory,  which  was  given  him  tor  establishing  a  kingdom  and  bringing 
it  to   a   state  of  blessedness. 

It  is  readily  admitted  that  Christ  received  power,  from  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  his 
human  nature;  and  received  authority-,  from  the  Father,  in  his  mediatorial  ca- 
pacity. This  reception  of  power  and  authority  has  given  rise  to  the  opinion  Ihat 
Christ  is  absolutely  dependent  on,  and  inferior  to,  the  Fatlier.  Whether  this 
opinion  is  correct  or  not,  it  does  not  conclusively  follow  from  the  premises. 
Because  Christ  possessed  human  nature,  and  received  power  from  heaven  in 
that  nature,  it  does  not  follow  that  he  does  not  possess  another  and  a  higher  na- 
ture. The  scriptures  abundantly  testify  that  the  material  nature  of  man  is  mortal. 
Rut  it  would  not  be  correct  to  infer  that  he  had  no  other  than  a  material  nature; 
and  that  he  was  wholly  mortal.  But  this  inference  would  be  just  as  conclusive,  as 
the  inference  that  Christ  is  only  human,  because  the  scriptures  testify  of  this 
humanity.  Because  the  chief  Magistrate  of  a  nation  commissions  certain  officers, 
and  authorizes  them  to  do  particular  duties,  it  does  not  follow  that  their  natures 
are  inferior  to  his.  Because  Christ  is  commissioned  and  authorized  by  the  Father 
to  perform  the  duties  of  an  office,  to  which  he  was  appointed,  it  does  not  follow, 
by  pnrity  of  reasoning,  that  his  nature  is  inferior  to  the  Father's.  Other  testi- 
monies beside  those,  which  relate  to  his  humanity  and  mediatorial  office,  must 
be  produced  to  ascertain  what  was  that  nature,  which  he  possessed,  when  he 
had  glory  with  the  Father  before  the  world  was,  or  the  nature,  which  was  united 
with  the  man  Christ  Jesus. 

Christ,  speaking  of  his  coming  to  raise  the  dead,  says,  "They  shall  see  the  Son 
of  man  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven,  with  power  ((Tuva^iy')  and  great  glory. 
If  this  be  a  work,  which  belongs  to  his  office,  it  does  not  follow  that  this  power 
was  to  be  given  to  him.  As  there  is  no  intimation  that  he  received  this  power 
from  the  Father,  it  is  natural  to  infer  that  he  was  to  come  with  his  own  underiv- 
ed  power.  When  i^oua-nt,  authority  is  applied  to  Christ  in  the  New  Testament,' 
it  is  generally  expressed  or  implied  that  it  was^itewhim.  Wlien  J^uv^t/xic,  power, 
is  applied  to  him,  it  is  neither  expressed,  nor  implied  that  it  was  given  him,  ex- 
cepting when  he  was  consecrated  to  the  priest's  office  by  the  anointing  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.     This  unction  was  evidently  imparted  to  his  human  nature. 

The  manner  of  Christ's  performing  miracles  is  an  evidence  that  Yn^  power  was 
not  given  him.  At  a  wedding  in  Cana  of  Galilee  he  turned  water  into  wine.  It 
is  recorded,  "This  beginning  of  miracles  did  Jesus  in  Cana  of  Galilee,  and  shew- 
ed forth  his  glory.  If  this  miraculous  power  had  been  given  hin>  by  the  Father, 
it  is  not  strictly  true  that  he  manifested  his  glory;  for  it  was  liis  Fathers  ginry. 
When  the  prophets  and  apostles  wrought  miracles,  it  never  was  recorded  ofthenA 
that  they  manifested  or  shewed  forth  their  glory. 


CHRIST    POSSESSES    DIVINE    ATUTHORITY.  133 

When  Chi-ist  wrought  miracles,  he  appeared  to  work  in  his  own  name  and  by 
his  own  power.  His  prayer  at  the  grave  of  Lazarus  does  not  militate  against  this 
opinion.  He  was  wont  to  pray.  In  his  human  nature,  and  in  his  mediatorial  ca- 
pacity, there  was  an  evident  propriety  in  his  making  intercession  with  the  Father. 
Before  he  raised  Lazarus,  "Jesus  lifted  up  his  eyes  and  said,  Father  I  thank 
thee  that  thou  hast  heard  rae;  and  I  know  that  thou  hearest  me  always;  but. 
hecause  of  the  people,  which  stand  by,  J  said  it,  that  they  may  helieve  that  tliou 
hast  sent  me."  Tliis  is  a  prayer  of  thanks.  It  contains  no  request  for  favor,  or 
for  extraordinary  pOYwer  to  perform  this  miracle.  He  gave  thanks  to  the  Father 
that  he  had  heard  him.  It  is  natural  to  suppose  that  he  gave  thanks  for  what  he 
had  said  he  was  glad,  or  rejoiced,  in  the  former  part  of  the  chapter.  When 
Jesus  heard  of  the  sickness  of  his  friend,  he  said,  this  sickness  is  not  unto  death, 
but  for  the  glory  of  God;  that  the  Son  of  God  might  be  glorified  thereby.  This 
■was  X.\\Q  intent  of  his  sickness.  Instead  of  going  directly  to  visit  and  heal  his 
sick  friend,  "he  abode  two  days  still  in  the  same  place  where  he  was."  When 
he  knew  that  he  was  dead,  he  stated  the  fact  to  his  disciples;  and  he  added,  "/ 
am  glad  for  your  sakes  that  J  was  not  there,  to  the  intent  ye  may  believe."  It 
was  for  the  opportunity  of  glorifying  himself  and  of  producing  conviction  in  his 
disciples  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God;  that  he  h.ad  life  in  himself  and  quickened 
■whom  he  would,  that  he  was  glad.  It  appears  that  it  was  for  this  opportunity 
he  prayed;  that  it  was  for  the  hearing  of  this  prayer;  for  the  occurrence  of  this 
opportunity  he  gave  thanks  at  the  grave  of  Lazarus.  This  was  the  cause  of  his 
gratitude.  But  he  said  it,  i.  e.  he  gave  thanks  because  of  the  people  that  stood 
by,  that  tliey  might  believe  that  the  Father  had  sent  him.  By  this  act  of  prayer 
and  the  acceptance  of  it,  he  manifested  the  union  of  wilTand  operation,  which 
subsisted  between  him  and  the  Father.  But  there  is  not  the  least  intimation,  nor 
evidence  that  he  asked  [ov po-mcr.  When  the  prophets  and  apostles  wrought 
miracles,  they  gave  decisive  evidence  that  the  power  was  not  of  themselves,  but 
of  God. 

"As  the  Father  hath  life  in  himself,  so  halh  he  given  to  the  Son  to  have  life 
in  himself,"  John  5:'26.  From  this  passage  it  is  inferred  by  some  that  the  Father 
gave /)otDer  to  the  Son  to  raise  the  dead.  The  inference  is  not  conclusive;  and 
the  sentiment  appears  to  be  unfounde<l.  The  life,  which  the  Father  had  in 
himself  was  an  eternal  independent  life;  or  it  was  the  power  of  communicating 
life  in  any  period  of  eternity.  Either  is  a  divine  attril)ate  and  cannot  be  com- 
municated to  a  creature.  But  this  is  not  the  intent  of  the  text  The  import  of 
it  appears  to  be  this.  As  the  Father  hath  power  in  himself  of  giving  life,  so  he 
hath  given  authority  to  the  Son,  to  exercise  the  same  power,  which  he  has  in 
himself.  That  the  gift,  which  the  Father  made  to  the  Son  was  authority,  not 
poiuer,  is  evident  from  the  following  vei'se.  "And  hatli  given  him  authority  to 
execute  judgment  also.  It  ajipears  that  the  same  qualification,  which  was  neces- 
sary for  executing  judgment,  was  also  necessary  lor  raising  the  dead.  As  the 
((ualification  requisite  for  doing  the  former  was  authority,  it  is  inferred  that  the 
same  qualification  was  necessary  for  doing  the  latter.  When  Christ  had  received 
this  authority,  it  was  then  true,  "As  the  Father  raiseth  up  the  dead  and  quick- 
enethtliem,  even  so  the  Son  quickeneth  whom  he  will." 

Jesus  Christ  calls  himself  Z/je  Life;  the  resurrection  and  the  life.  St.  John 
says,  "In  him  was  life;  and  the  Life  was  the  light  of  men.  The  life  was  mani- 
fested and  we  have  seen  it;  and  bear  witness  and  siiew  unto  you  that  eternul 
Life,  ivhich  -was  with  the  Father,  and  was  manifested  unto  us."  If  Christ  had 
not  life  in  himself,  and  had  not  power  in  himself  to  communicate  it,  (here  appears 
to  be  no  propriety,  no  pertinence  in  calling  him  the  Life.  St.  John  calls  this 
Life,  eternal  Life,  which  was  with  the  Father.  By  this  name  he  meant  Christ; 
for,  said  he,  'we  have  seen  it;  and  it  was  manifested  unto  us."  If  he  was  with  the 
Father,  and  was  eternal,  he  had  the  same  power  to  communicate  life,  which  the 
Father  had. 

Jesus  Christ  had  authority  to  forgive  sins.  This  work  belongs  to  his  mediato- 
rial oflfice;  and,  of  course,  his  authority  to  do  it  was  given  him.  He  exercised 
this  authority  when  he  was  upon  earth.  At  a  certain  time  "They  brought  to 
him  a  man,  sick  of  the  palsy,  lying  on  a  bed;  and  Jesus,  seeing  thtir  faith,  .said 
unto  the  sick  of  the  i>alsy,  son,  be  of  ii;ood  cheer,  thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee. 
And  behold,  certain  of  the  scribes  said  within  themselves,  this  man  bLisphemeth. 
"Xnd  Jesus  knowing  their  tlioughts,  said,  wherefore  think  ye  evil  in  your  hearts; 
for  whctiier  is  it  easier  to  say,  thy  sins   be  forgiven   thee,   or  to   say,  arise   and 


134  CHRIST    POSSESSES    DIVINE    AUTHORITY. 

•walk.  But  that  ye  may  know  that  the  Son  of  man  hath  power  (e^oya-iav  autlioi- 
ity)  on  earth  to  forgive  sins  (then  saith  he  to  the  sick  of  the  palsy)  arise,  take 
up  thy  bed,  and  go  into  thine  house."  From  this  account,  it  is  inferred  by  some 
that  the  forgiving  of  the  sins  of  the  paralytic  man  was  nothing  more  than  the 
removing  of  his  disorder;  and  that  the  power  Christ  exercised  on  this  occasion, 
did  not  belong  to  his  nature;  but  it  was  given  him.  In  answer  to  this,  let  it  be 
observed,  that  the  cures,  which  Christ  wrought  upon  invalids,  appear  to  have 
been  generally  accompanied,  or  followed  by  a  spiritual  cure  upon  the  subject. 
Admitting  this  to  be  fact,  it  would  be  generally  of  the  same  import,  whether 
Christ  said  to  an  impotent  person,  thy  sins  be  forgiven  thee,  or  to  say,  arise  and 
walk.  Besides,  Christ  sometimes  declared  forgiveness  of  sins,  when  no  bodily 
disease  existed  in  the  object;  at  least,  when  no  bodily  disease  was  named.  A 
certain  woman,  who  was  a  sinner,  went  to  Christ;  washed  his  feet  with  tears; 
and  wiped  them  with  her  hair.  She  kissed  his  feet  and  anointed  them.  Christ 
said  unto  her,  "Thy  sins  are  forgiven. — Thy  faith  hath  saved  thee."  This  is  not 
a  solitary  case  of  forgiveness  for  sin  through  faith  in  Christ.  Pardon  of  sin 
through  faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  is  a  prominent  doctrine  of  the  New  Testament. 
When  Jesus  met  Saul  of  Tarsus  on  his  journey  to  Damascus,  he  commissioned 
l»im  to  be  a  minister  to  the  Gentiles,  ••that  they  may  receive  forgiveness  of  sins 
and  inheritance  among  them,  wliich  are  sanctified  by  Jaith  that  is  in  me."  It 
would  seem  strange  that  faith  in  Christ  should  be  a  condition  of  forgiveness,  if 
he  had  not  \>»wer  in  hUnse If  to  forgive.  It  is  the  office  of  Christ  to  pronounce 
sentence  upon  the  human  race  in  the  day  of  judgment;  as  it  is  his  prerogative 
to  give  reward  to  the  righteous,  it  appears  rational  that  he  should  forgive  their 
sins.  There  is  no  intimation  given  that  he  depends  on  foreign  power  for  assist- 
ance in  performing  the  duties  of  this  high  and  important  office.  When  he  for- 
gave sins  here  upon  earth,  he  spoke  not  the  language  of  dependence.  When 
he  awards  retribution  to  the  human  race  at  the  great  last  day,  he  is  represented 
a  King,  speaking  the  language,  not  of  borrowed  power,  but  the  language  of 
divine  sovereignty. 


DIVINE    HONORS   ASCRIBED  TO  JESUS   CHRIST. 


"That  all  men  should  honor  the  Son,  even  as  they 
honor  the  Father,"  John  5:23.  Christ  has  performed 
and  will  perform  works,  which  require  almighty 
power.  Divine  titles,  even  the  highest,  are  given  to 
him.  He  possesses  divine  attributes.  He  exercises 
divine  authority.  These  things  are  revealed.  These 
are  articles  of  belief.  These  produce  a  practical 
effect.  These  demand  divine  honors.  The  sacred 
scriptures  ascribe  the  same  kind  of  honor  to  the  Son, 
which  they  ascribe  to  the  Father,  i.  e.  divine  honor. 
It  is  of  importance  to  form  correct  ideas  of  all  the 
doctrines  of  the  scriptures.  But  it  is  peculiarly  im- 
portant to  form  correct  ideas  of  those  doctrines,  which 
directly  affect  the  practice.  It  is  of  the  first  import- 
ance to  render  supreme  honor  to  whom  it  is  due,  and 
to  avoid  idolatry. 

The  sacred  scriptures  are  a  safe  and  sure  guide  on 
this  subject.  They  ascribe  divine  honors  to  the  Son, 
in  connexion  with  the  Father.  Christ's  commission 
to  his  apostles,  when  he  sent  them  to  evangelize  the 
world  was,  "Go  ye  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost."  Whether  this  text  signifies  that 
the  apostles,  in  administering  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism, acted  in  the  name,  and  under  the  authority,  of  the 
sacred  Three;  or  whether  it  signifies  that  by  this 
rite  they  initiated  persons  into  Christianity;  and  united 
them  to  Christ's  visible  kingdom,  it  has  the  same  bear- 


136  DIVINE    HONORS    ASCRIBED    TO    JESUS    CHRIST. 

ing  upon  the  subject  under  consideration.  In  either 
case,  it  connects  the  Son  with  the  Father,  and  gives 
to  each  the  same  authority  and  honor.  If  it  is  divine 
honor  to  the  Father  to  have  control  over  ministering 
servants,  and  to  have  persons  formally  introduced  into 
his  kingdom,  the  same  acts  give  the  same  honor  to 
Christ. 

The  Son  of  God,  speaking  of  his  power  and  author- 
ity to  raise  the  dead,  and  judge  the  world,  draws  this 
conclusion,  "they  should  honor  the  Son,  even  as  they 
honor  the  Father."  As  these  works  require  divine 
perfections,  it  is  a  just  and  natural  inference  that  they 
should  give  him  divine  honor. 

Paul  in  his  salutations  to  the  churches,  repeatedly 
says,  "Grace  to  you  and  peace  from  God  the  Father, 
and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  If  divine  honor  is  due  to 
the  Father  for  giving  grace  and  peace  to  the  world, 
the  same  honor  is  due  to  Christ;  for  they  come  from 
him  no  less  than  from  the  Father.  God  has  given  to 
Christ  a  name,  "which  is  above  every  name,  that  at 
the  name  of  Jesus,  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things 
in  heaven  and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the 
earth;  and  that  every  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father."  To 
bow  the  knee  to  Jesus,  signifies  to  worship  him.  That 
the  knee  of  every  thing  in  heaven,  inearth,  and  under 
the  earth,  should  bow  to  him,  implies  the  universality 
of  his  worship.  To  confess  Jesus  Christ  to  be  Lord, 
is  to  acknowledge  his  sovereignty;  and  this  acknowl- 
edgment will  be  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father.  This 
acknowledgment  would  not  be  to  his  glory,  if  his  Son 
were  not  divine.  But  a  confession  of  his  Son's  divinity, 
♦implies  the  divinity  of  the  Father.  In  the  book  of 
the  Revelation  of  St.  John,  it  is  written,  "And  every 
creature  which  is  in  heaven  and  on  the  earth,  and 
under  the  earth,  and  such  as  are  in  the  sea,  and  all 
that  are  in  them,  heard  I  saying,  blessing  and  honor, 
and  glory,  and  power,  be  unto  him,  that  sitteth  upon 
the  throne,  and  unto  the  Lamb,  for  ever  and  ever.    I 


DIVINE    HONORS    ASCRIBED    TO    JESUS    CHRIST.      137 

beheld,  and  lo,  a  great  multitude,  which  no  man  could 
number,  of  all  nations,  and  kindreds,  and  people,  and 
tongues,  stood  before  the  throne  and  before  the  Lamb, 
clothed  with  white  robes,  and  palms  in  their  hands; 
and  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  saying,  salvation  to  our 
God,  which  sitteth  upon  the  throne,  and  unto  the 
Lamb."  In  one  of  these  texts,  all  creatures  are 
brought  to  view,  giving  divine  honors  to  him  that  sat 
upon  the  throne;  and  giving  equal  honors  to  the  Lamb. 
In  another  of  these  texts  an  innumerable  multitude  of 
saints,  ascribed  the  same  glory  to  Christ,  which  they 
ascribed  to  the  Father.  Divine  honor,  or  worship, 
was  given  to  Christ,  without  naming  the  Father.  By 
the  Psalmist  it  was  predicted  of  Christ,  "blessed  be 
he  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the  Lord."  This  as- 
cription of  honor  was  actually  made  to  him  by  the 
multitude,  who  went  before  and  followed  him,  when 
he  was  riding  up  to  Jerusalem. 

When  it  was  known  abroad  that  Jesus  was  born, 
wise  men  came  from  the  East  to  do  him  honor.  Their 
design  of  going,  was  to  worship  him.  See  Matt.  2:2. 
When  they  saw  him,  they  fell  down  and  worshipped 
him.  At  a  time  when  Christ  was  on  his  way  to  Jeru- 
salem, "The  whole  multitude  of  his  disciples  began 
to  rejoice  and  praise  God  with  a  loud  voice,  saying, 
blessed  be  the  King,  that  cometh  in  the  name  of  the 
Lord,  peace  in  heaven,  and  glory  in  the  highest." 
Their  praising  God  consisted  in  giving  blessing  to  the 
King,  i.  e.  Christ;  and  they  gave  him  glory  in  the 
highest.  When  the  Pharisees  called  upon  him  to 
rebuke  his  disciples  for  giving  him  this  divine  homage, 
he  replied,  "If  these  should  hold  their  peace,  the 
stones  would  immediately  cry  out."  Christ  could  not 
have  expressed  his  approbation  of  their  homage,  nor 
his  claim  to  divine  honor,  in  stronger  language.  One 
of  the  malefactors,  who  was  crucified  with  Jesus, 
addressed  him  by  prayer,  "Lord,  remember  me,  when 
thou  coraest  into  thy  kingdom."  Christ  approved  and 
answered  his  petition.  When  Christ  was  about  to 
18 


138       DIVINE   HONORS    ASCRIBED    TO  JESUS    CHRIST. 

leave  the  world  and  ascend  to  the  Father,  he  hlessed 
his  disciples.  "And  it  came  to  pass  while  he  blessed 
them,  he  was  parted  from  them,  and  carried  up  into 
heaven.     And  they  worshipped  him.'''' 

When  Stephen  was  stoned  he  ojOfered  up  a  peti- 
tion, "saying.  Lord  Jesus,  receive  mj  spirit."  This 
was  a  prayer  addressed  to  Christ;  and  it  was  addressed 
to  him,  when  he  saw  him  on  the  right  hand  of  God. 
He  continued  his  petition  to  his  Lord  and  said,  "Lord, 
lay  not  this  sin  to  their  charge." 

The  primitive  Christians  called  upon  the  name  of 
Christ;  which  was  an  act  of  prayer  or  worship.  When 
the  Lord  commanded  Ananias  to  g-o  and  heal  Saul  of 
his  blindness,  he  replied,"!  have  heard  by  many  of  this 
man,  how  much  evil  he  hath  done  to  thy  saints  at 
Jerusalem;  and  here  he  hath  authority  from  the 
chief  priests  to  bind  all,  that  call  on  thy  name.''''  When 
Paul  began  to  preach,  his  hearers  inquired,  saying,  "Is 
not  this  he  that  destroyed  them,  which  called  on  this 
name  in  Jerusalem.'^"  "Be  baptized  and  wash  aw?y 
thy  sins,  calling  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord.  The  same 
Lord  is  rich  unto  all  that  call  upon  him.''''  Whosoever 
shall  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  saved. 
When  he  bringeth  in  the  first  begotten  into  the  world, 
he  saith,  let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him.  St.  John 
heard  many  of  the  inhabitants  of  heaven,  "saying  with 
a  loud  voice,  worthy  is  the  Lamb  that  was  slain,  to 
receive  power,  and  riches,  and  wisdom,  and  strength, 
and  honor,  and  glory,  and  blessing." 

The  pagans  reproached  the  prniiitive  Christians  for 
giving  divine  honors  to  Christ.  "Pliny,  a  Roman  pro- 
consul celebrated  for  his  works,  giving  an  account  to 
the  emperior  Trajan  of  their  morals  and  doctrine, 
after  being  forced  to  confess  that  the  Christians  were 
pious,  innocent  and  upright  men,  and  that  they  assem- 
bled before  the  rising  of  the  sun,  not  to  concert  the 
commission  of  crimes,  or  to  disturb  the  peace  of  the 
empire,  but  to  live  in  -'iety  and  righteousness,  to  detest 
frauds,  adulteries,  and  even  the  coveting  of  wealth  of 


DIVINE    HONORS    ASCRIBED    TO    JESUS    CHRIST.         139 

others;  he  only  reproaches  them  with  chanting  Iiymns 
in  honor  of  their  Christ,  and  of  rendering  to  liiin  the 
same  homages  as  to  a  god." 

It  clearly  appears  from  the  sacred  scriptures  and 
from  history  that  divine  honors  were  given  to  Ciirist. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  he  ever  discountenanced 
the  practice.  There  is  evidence  that  he  approved 
it.  When  the  early  Christians  were  accused  of  giving 
divine  worship  to  Christ  they  did  not  deny  the  charge; 
but  they  gave  evidence  that  they  esteemed  and  rev- 
erenced him  as  God. 

The  character,  which  the  sacred  scriptures  give  to 
the  Son  of  God  entitles  him  to  divine  honors.  By 
inheritance  he  possesses  a  more  excellent  name  than 
the  angels.  The  work  of  creation,  the  performance  of 
miracles  in  his  own  name,  the  government  of  all  tilings 
are  attributed  to  him.  He  has  power  to  raise  the 
dead,  to  judge  the  world,  and  distribute  reward  and 
punishment.  Divine  perfections  are  attributed  to  him; 
and  he  manifested  the  holiness  of  divine  nature.  As 
great  works,  as  great  authority,  as  exalted  titles,  as 
much  love  and  excellence,  are  attributed  to  the  Son  as 
to  the  Father.  If  the  Father  is  entitled  to  love,  obedi- 
ence, aild  worship,  on  account  of  the  excellence  pf  his 
nature,  and  the  communications  of  his  goodness,  Christ 
is  entitled  to  equal  love,  obedience  and  worship.  It 
is  not  an  arbitrary  act  of  divine  power  to  require  peo- 
ple to  honor  the  Son  even  as  they  honor  the  Father; 
for  Christ,  in  his  own  nature  and  communications, 
demands  this  homage. 

It  cannot  justly  be  denied  that  the  sacred  scriptures 
require  divine  honors  to  be  paid  to  the  Son  of  God.  It 
cannot  be  denied  that  primitive  Christians,  and  Chris- 
tians in  every  age,  have  esteemed  and  worshipped 
Christ  as  God.  This  esteem  and  reverence  for  the 
Lord  Jesus  was  derived  directly  from  the  character 
which  he  exhibited,  and  from  the  system  of  religion 
which  he  published,  and  his  apostles  propagated.  The 
Christian  religion  was  designed  to  be,  and  it  has  been 


140         DIVINE    HONORS    ASCRIBED    TO    JESUS    CHRIST. 

published,  among  Jews  and  Gentiles.  One  great  object 
of  Christianity  was  to  turn  them  from  idolatry  to  the 
worship,  the  spiritual  worship,  of  the  only  living  and 
true  God.  When  it  is  considered  how  prone  mankind 
v\^ere  to  idolatry,  it  might  be  expected  that  the  great- 
est care  would  be  taken  to  avoid  any  intimation,  which 
would  give  the  least  encouragement  to  idolatry.  If 
Christ  be  a  mere  creature;  if  he  be  not  entitled  to 
divine  worship,  precaution  was  not  used  in  the  sacred 
writings  against  idolatry.  On  the  contrary,  they  laid 
its  foundation,  and  gave  it  an  extensive  and  perpetual 
patronage.  Christ  claimed  union  with  the  Father  in 
design  and  operation.  He  thought  it  not  robbery  to 
be  equal  with  God.  He  inculcated  the  duty  of  honoring 
the  Son  even  as  they  honored  the  Father.  He  allow- 
ed his  disciples  to  call  him  God.  He  allowed  them  to 
worship  him,  and  he  forbade  them  not.  His  church 
has,  in  every  age,  acknowledged  him  to  be  God,  and 
have  worshipped  him  as  God.  If  this  is  error,  if  this 
is  idolatry,  Christ  is  the  author  of  it;  the  inspired 
writings  support  it. 

It  is  true,  tiie  sacred  scriptures,  in  certain  instances 
give  great  limitations  to  Jesus  Christ.  He  acknowl- 
edges that  the  Father  is  greater  than  he;  that  he  is  sent 
by  the  Father.  As  Jesus  Christ  was  both  human  and 
divine,  it  is  highly  jjrobable  that  he  would  sometimes 
speak  of  one  nature,  sometimes  of  the  other.  When  he 
spoke  of  his  human  nature,  he  would  of  course  speak 
of  it  with  limitations.  If  it  be  just  to  infer  from  that 
class  of  texts,  which  attribute  limited  properties  to 
Christ,  that  he  possesses  only  human  nature,  it  is  equally 
just  to  infer  from  that  class  of  texts,  which  attribute 
divine  works,  names,  attributes,  and  worship  to  him,  that 
he  possesses  only  divine  nature.  But  this  is  not  a  cor- 
rect method  of  reasoning.  Instead  of  attempting  to 
make  one  part  of  scripture  destroy  another,  care  ought 
to  be  taken  to  compare  part  with  part;  discover  their 
connexion  and  object;  and  if  possible  discover  their 
coincidence.      If  it  be  previously  determined  that  the 


DIVINE    HONORS    ASCRIBED    TO    JESUS    CHRIST.         141 

divinity  of  Christ  shall  not  stand,  every  thing  is  made 
to  bear  against  it.  The  plainest  texts  are  tortured  till 
they  unwillingly  speak  the  language  of  those  who 
use  them.  If  it  be  admitted  that  human  and  divine 
nature  are  united  in  Christ,  it  is  easy  to  account  for 
those  divine  ascriptions,  which  are  made  to  him,  while 
he  speaks  of  himself  possessing  limited  qualities. 

The  sacred  scriptures  attribute  to  the  Son  divme 
names,  divine  attributes,  divine  offices,  divine  works, 
and  divine  worship.  If  Christ  possessed  divine  nature, 
he  was  entitled  to  divine  honors.  If  he  did  not  possess 
divine  nature,  his  works,  his  titles,  his  offices  could  not 
claim  those  honors,  which  are  due  to  the  Father. 
Moses,  the  other  prophets,  and  the  apostles,  performed 
works  which  required  divine  power;  and  they  filled 
high  and  important  offices.  Why  was  not  Moses  en- 
titled to  divine  honor  for  bringing  miraculous  plagues 
on  the  land  of  Egypt?  Why  was  not  Joshua  entitled 
to  divine  honor  for  stavinof  the  sun  and  moon  in  their 
courses?  Why  Avere  not  the  prophets  and  apostles 
entitled  to  divine  honor  for  healing  diseases  and  raising 
the  dead?  Because  they  did  not  perform  these  works 
by  their  own  power.  It  was  the  power  of  God  oper- 
ating through  them,  which  performed  these  extraor- 
dinary works.  This  they  acknowledged.  They  dis- 
claimed superior  excellence.  They  disclaimed  all 
title  to  divine  honor.  Moses  was  buried  in  a  secret 
place  to  prevent  the  idolatry  of  the  people  at  his 
grave.  The  apostles  used  the  greatest  care  to  ascribe 
all  efficiency  in  their  extraordinary  works  to  God;  and 
to  prevent  people  from  giving  them  divine  worship. 
As  well  might  human  qualities  be  attributed  to  the 
instruments  we  use,  as  divine  qualities  be  attributed 
to  men  for  works,  which  God  performed  through  them. 

If  Christ  performed  his  works  by  his  own  natural 
power;  if  his  names  were  significant  of  his  nature;  if 
he  possessed  those  attributes,  which  are  ascribed  to 
him  in  the  scriptures;  if  he  was  competent  in  his  own 
nature  to  fill  those  offices,  which  he  sustained,  he  had 


142        DIVINE    HONORS    ASCRIBED    TO    JESUS    CHRIST. 

a  claim  to  divine  honors.  But  if  he  was  only  constituted 
Creator;  if  he  was  only  the  medium  through  which 
the  Father  created  the  world;  if  divine  names  and 
attributes  were  attributed  to  him  merely  because  he 
acted  by  the  influence  of  the  Father,  and  was  appointed, 
constituted,  ordained  to  the  highest  offices,  he  is  no 
more  entitled  to  divine  honors  than  were  the  prophets 
and  apostles.  It  is  admitted  that  people  are  entitled 
to  honor  proportionate  to  their  offices,  if  they  be  ade- 
quate to  the  duties  of  their  respective  stations.  But 
an  elevated  office  does  no  honor  to  a  man,  unless  he 
does  honor  to  the  office.  Should  our  government 
appoint  a  minister  to  a  foreign  court,  who  did  not 
possess  one  qualification  for  that  office,  and  needed 
and  received  mediately  or  immediately  the  instruc- 
tions of  the  chief  magistrate  in  every  step  of  his  pro- 
ceedings, is  such  a  man  entitled  to  ministerial  honor? 
Ought  the  foreign  court  to  honor  him  even  as  they 
honored  the  chief  magistrate?  By  giving  him  presi- 
dential honors,  would  they  honor  the  chief  magistrate 
of  our  country?  If  Christ  derived  all  his  qualifications 
for  his  offices  from  the  Father,  the  honor  of  all  his 
official  transactions  would  be  due  to  the  Father,  not 
to  him.  If  he  were  honored  according  to  his  offices, 
the  Father,  who  established  them  by  his  own  author- 
ity, and  filled  them  with  his  own  fulness  would  be 
entitled  to  greater  honor.  It  would  be  disproportion- 
ate to  honor  the  Son  even  as  they  honor  the  Father. 
It  is  not  doubted  that  it  is  an  honor  to  a  chief  magis- 
trate to  honor  his  ministers;  but  it  would  not  be  an 
honor  to  him  to  transfer  to  them  the  honor,  which 
was  due  only  to  himself. 

If  the  Son  be  inferior  in  nature  to  the  Father,  it  is 
impossible  to  honor  the  Father  by  giving  divine  honors 
to  the  Son.  It  is  in  vain  to  say  that  those  divine 
honors,  which  are  given  to  the  Son  are  given  ulti- 
mately to  the  Father;  that  he  is  the  constituted 
medium,  through  which  God  the  Father  is  worship- 
ped; and  that  he  does  not  receive  divine   honors  for 


DIVINE    HONORS    ASCRIBED    TO    JESUS    CHRIST.  143 

any  excellence  of  his  own  nature,  nor  for  any  acts  of 
his  oivn  power.  The  pagans  have  ever  cherished  a 
sentiment  similar  to  this  and  they  have  worshipped 
accordingly.  They  appeared  to  suppose  that  God 
was  a  holy  Being  and  that  they  had  oflended  him. 
They,  therefore,  sought  some  medium,  through  which 
they  might  pay  him  their  homage  and  render  him 
propitious.  When  the  heathen  worshipped  the  sun, 
they  did  not  design  that  their  religious  homage  should 
terminate  in  that  luminous  body.  But  they  designed 
to  worship  it  as  the  most  striking  image  of  the  Deity; 
or  as  the  medium,  through  which  he  bestowed  his 
greatest  blessings.  When  they  worshipped  the  ele- 
ments or  any  of  the  brutal  creation,  they  imagined 
that  the  Deity  either  resided  in  them;  or  that  through 
them  he  would  operate  in  their  favor.  W  hen  they 
worshipped  departed  spirits,  they  imagined  that  they 
would  intercede  with  God  for  them;  and  through 
their  influence  they  should  receive  divine  favors.  In 
all  this  kind  of  worship  they  probably  designed  to 
extend  their  homage  ultimately  to  the  Deity;  unless 
it  were  in  some  instances,  in  which  thev  had  lived  so 
Ions:  in  idolatry,  and  had  become  so  gross  in  their 
worship,  that  they  lost  sight  of  the  Deity  in  their 
similitudes. 

God's  first  command  to  Israel  was  to  prevent  them 
from  having  more  than  one  God,  and  his  second  was 
to  restrain  them  from  idolatry.  If  Christ  possess  not 
divine  nature,  if  he  be  only  a  subordinate  Deity,  it 
appears  to  be  no  less  idolatry  to  worship  him  than  it 
is  to  worship  the  sun,  moon,  the  host  of  heaven,  the 
elements,  individuals  of  the  brutal  creation,  or  depart- 
ed spirits. 

Another  argument,  of  no  inconsiderable  weight  in 
favor  of  Christ's  claim  to  divine  honors,  may  be  drawn 
from  his  own  words  at  the  institution  and  celebration 
of  the  ordinance  of  the  supper.  This  do  in  remem- 
brance of  me,  Luke  22:19.  The  design  of  the  Lord's 
Supper  was  to  keep  in  remembrance  the  Lord  Jesus 


144        DIVINE    HONORS    ASCRIBED    TO    JESUS    CHRIST. 

Christ.  When  we  attend  the  celebration  of  this  ordi- 
nance, we  are  naturally  carried  back  to  him,  who 
instituted  it;  and  to  the  purposes  he  intended  to 
accomplish  by  its  observance.  We  find  that  it  was 
Christ  himself,  who  instituted  this  rite;  and  that  he 
intended  this  as  a  mean  of  keeping  in  remembrance 
himself,  his  sufferings,  and  the  blessings  which  are 
conferred  in  consequence  of  them.  In  the  ordinance 
■we  behold  the  figure  of  the  Lamb  of  God,  who  taketh 
away  the  sin  of  the  world;  the  figure  of  the  sacrifice, 
which  was  offered  upon  the  cross;  the  figure  of  that 
blood,  without  the  shedding  of  which  there  can  be  no 
remission.  We  fix  our  attention  upon  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Author  and  Finisher  of  faith;  the  Author  of  eternal 
salvation.  This  ordinance,  then,  not  only  serves  to 
keep  the  Savior  in  remembrance,  but  it  tends  to  excite 
in  the  heart  love  and  gratitude  to  the  Author  of  these 
inestimable  blessings.  It  was  enjoined  by  the  Savior 
that  this  ordinance  should  be  perpetuated  in  the 
Church  till  his  second  coming,  the  end  of  the  world. 
He  specified  the  object  of  this  duty.  He  required 
that  it  should  be  done  in  remembrance  of  himself. 

The  apostle  Paul,  writing  to  the  Corinthians  respect- 
ing their  irregular  attendance  upon  this  ordinance, 
attaches  the  highest  importance  to  a  right  perform- 
ance of  this  duty;  and  distinguished  guilt  to  a  violation 
of  it.  His  language  on  this  subject  is  strong  and  plain. 
"Whosoever  shall  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup 
of  the  Lord  unworthily,  shall  be  guilty  of  the  body 
and  blood  of  the  Lord.  He  that  eateth  and  drink- 
eth  unworthily,  eateth  and  drinketh  damnation  to  him- 
self, not  discerning  the  Lord's  body."  There  is  no  sin, 
blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Spirit  excepted,  for  which 
greater  punishment  is  threatened,  or  against  which  it 
is  made  more  sure,  than  a  profanation  of  the  Lord's 
supper.  There  is  no  duty,  which  appears  more 
solemn  or  interesting  than  this.  It  is  solemn,  because 
it  brings  to  view  the  crucifixion  of  the  Lord  of  glory; 
and  because  he   grants    his  special   presence  on  the 


DIVINE    HONORS    ASCRIBED    TO    JESUS    CHRIST.  145 

occasion.  It  Is  interesting,  because  without  the  sac- 
rifice, which  is  represented  by  this  ordinance,  there 
can  be  no  remission  of  sin.  Christ  himself  hath  said, 
"Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  drink 
his  blood,  there  is  no  life  in  you."  "Whoso  eateth 
my  flesh,  and  drinketh  ray  blood,  hath  eternal  life." 
Let  it  be  remarked,  and  let  it  be  remembered,  that 
Christ  established  this  positive  institution,  and  that  he 
made  himself  the  object  of  this  duty,  "This  do  in 
remembrance  of  me." 

It  is  generally,  if  not  universally,  admitted,  that  a 
celebration  of  the  Lord's  supper  is  a  religious  service. 
It  is  required  in  the  same  scriptures,  and  by  the  same 
authority,  by  which  every  duty  is  required.  After 
the  work  of  creation  was  completed,  God  set  apart  the 
seventh  day,  that  his  rational  creatures  might  com- 
memorate this  important  event,  and  observe  it  as  a 
day  of  holy  rest.  This  was  undoubtedly  a  religious 
service,  and  directed  to  the  Creator.  vYhen  a  more 
important  event,  the  redemption  of  the  world,  took 
place,  then  the  dav  on  which  it  occurred,  the  day  of 
the  resurrection,  was  appointed  for  the  commemora- 
tion of  the  work  of  redemption,  and  for  divine  service. 
The  Lord's  supper  is  an  institution  of  divine  appoint- 
ment, no  less  than  the  Sabbath,  or  public  w^orship. 

When  the  members  of  a  church  attend  rightly  upon 
this  ordinance,  they  bring  to  view  what  the  Savior 
has  done  for  them.  They  consider  him  the  procur- 
ing cause  of  salvation.  They  look  over  the  favors 
they  have  received,  and  those  which  are  offered 
them;  and  they  find  none  greater  than  the  provision 
made  and  offered  by  Christ  for  their  salvation.  Was 
it  a  favor  that  thev  received  natural  life  and  support 
from  the  divine  hand;  it  is  no  less  a  favor  that  they 
were  redeemed  from  the  second  death,  and  enjoy 
spiritual  support.  Look  over  the  whole  catalogue  of 
blessings  which  have  come  upon  this  world,  and  there 
are  none  greater  than  those  conferred  by  Christ,  and 
recognized  in  this  ordinance.  In  attending  upon  this 
19 


146       DIVINE    HONORS    ASCRIBED    TO    JESUS    CHRIST. 

rite  the  attention  is  fixed  on  Christ,  on  the  benefits  he 
has  communicated,  and  those,  which  he  offers.  Love 
and  gratitude  are  excited  toward  their  Benefactor; 
and  in  the  spirit  of  obedience,  they  do  it  in  remem- 
brance of  Him.  Here  is  a  rehgious  service,  as  solemn 
as  devotional,  as  interesting  as  any  which  is  required 
at  their  hands,  and  it  is  offered  to  Christ.  It  is  done 
in  remembrance  of  Him.  It  is  done  to  the  honor  of 
his  name;  and  a  greater  honor  they  do  not  give  in  any 
rehgious  service  whatever.  Do  we  honor  God  by 
sanctifying  the  Sabbath,  by  waiting  upon  him  in  his 
court?  We  honor  Christ  no  less  by  professing  his 
name,  and  commemorating  his  death,  his  love,  and  his 
blessings. 

Pagans  had  long  given  divine  honors  to  distinguished 
men.  Those,  who  were  renowned  in  arms,  or  had 
done  extraordinary  things  for  their  nation,  were,  after 
their  decease,  enrolled  among  the  gods,  and  made  the 
objects  of  honors,  which  were  not  due  to  created 
beings.  This  practice  was  displeasing  in  the  divine 
sight.  One  object  of  Christ's  coming  into  the  world, 
was  to  expose  the  error  of  idolatry,  and  to  establish 
the  worship  of  the  only  living  and  true  God.  He 
knew  the  proneness  of  the  human  heart  at  that  day^ 
to  have  lords  many,  and  gods  many.  He  knew  their 
eager  disposition  to  catch  at  every  thing,  which  would 
encourage  them  in  the  deification  of  departed  men  of 
uncommon  character,  and  in  the  practice  of  idolatry. 
With  these  circumstances  in  view,  suppose  Christ 
was  simply  a  created  being,  of  pure  intentions,  and 
designing  to  establish  a  religion,  which  would  give  all 
glory  to  God  alone,  can  it  be  supposed  he  would  estab- 
lish a  religious  rite  for  the  purpose  of  exalting  himself 
in  the  affections  of  mankind;  of  keeping  himself  in 
everlasting  remembrance  in  the  church;  and  denounc- 
ing the  heaviest  punishment,  even  condemnation  upon 
those,  who  should  not  suitably  observe  his  decree,  and 
do  honor  to  his  name?  Had  he  adopted  this  method, 
what  more  could  his   friends   have  desired  to  justify 


DIVINE    HONORS    ASCRIBED    TO   JESUS  CHRIST.        147 

themselves  in  placing  his  name  among  the  gods,  and 
of  rendering  him  divine  honors?  The  church  generally, 
ever  since  the  institution  of  this  ordinance,  have  given 
divine  honors  to  Christ  in  its  celebration,  and  if  they 
have,  in  this  respect,  fallen  into  idolatry,  it  appears 
that  they  have  been  led  into  this  error,  by  the  nature 
and  design  of  this  rite,  and  by  the  time  and  manner  of 
its  institution.  It  is  strange  indeed,  if  this  holy  ordi- 
nance, which  was  designed  to  be  the  central,  the 
rallying  point,  of  the  church  of  God,  should  be  the 
occasion  of  drawing  it  principally  into  idolatry.  It  is 
readily  admitted,  that  the  holiest  things  are  perverted 
by  the  wicked  to  their  destruction.  But  to  suppose 
as  intelligent  and  as  pious  part  of  the  world  as  exists 
should  generally,  from  the  first  institution  of  this  ordi- 
nance, have  given  themselves  up  to  idolatry,  is  a 
hypothesis  too  big  with  absurdity  to  be  believed  bv 
those,  who  w^ould  solve  every  difficulty  in  our  religion 
by  the  efforts  of  reason. 

We  are  aware  of  the  objection  made  against  this 
sentiment;  that  the  religious  service,  which  is  offered 
to  Christ,  is  given  ultimately  to  the  Father;  that  the 
Son  is  an  ambassador;  that  he  is  respected  as  such, 
but  all  the  honor  terminates  in  God.  But  this  opinion 
appears  very  different  from  the  language,  which  Christ 
used  in  the  institution  of  the  ordinance;  "This  do  in 
remembrance  of  me.''''  If  he  was  only  ;•;  ambassa- 
dor, or  an  inferior  agent,  this  language  appears  to  be 
entirely  inappropriate.  It  appears  that  it  would  be 
offensive  to  God.  When  Moses,  at  the  rock,  made 
an  assumption  of  power,  which  detracted  from  the 
authoritj'  of  the  King  of  Israel,  he  felt  his  sore  dis- 
pleasure, and  suffered  for  his  rashness.  Shall  we 
offer  religious  service  to  Moses,  because  he  was  God's 
messenger  to  deliver  the  Hebrews  from  the  land  of 
bondage?  Shall  we  offer  religious  service  to  the 
prophets  and  apostles,  because  they  were  messengers 
of  God  for  the  good  of  the  world,  and  say,  this  reli- 
gious   honor  terminates  in   hisn,    who  sent   them?  So 


148         DIVINE    HONORS    ASCRIBED    TO    JESUS    CHRIST. 

reason  the  heathen  and  the  papists,  when   they  bow 
down  before  beasts  and  images.     But  with  the  hght 
of  revelation   in   our  eye,  and  the    second  command 
in  our  hand,  is  it   possible  that   we  can   fall  into  this 
gross  absurdity?  Were  there  danger  that  we  should 
love   Christ  too  much,  or  that  we   should  give  him 
too    much   honor,  would    this  ordinance    have    been 
instituted,  which  is  calculated  to  excite  the  devoutest 
affections  of  our  hearts  toward  our  Redeemer,  unless 
a  caution  were   given  to  prevent  us  from  holding  him 
in    too  high    estimation;    and   of  rendering   him   too 
much  of  our  service.     Let  us  illustrate  the  case  by  an 
example:  Suppose   a   king,  whose  subjects   had  been 
guilty    of  treason,    and    had   exposed    themselves    to 
capital   punishment,  should  select  one  of  his  people, 
who  had  not  fallen  into  the  common  transgression,  or 
one  from  another  nation,  to  be  an  ambassador  to  treat 
with  them   on   the    terms  of  reconciliation    between 
them  and  their  sovereign.     After  every   thing  is  done 
on   his  part  to   effect   his    benevolent   purpose,    the 
ambassador  appoints  a  certain  celebration  to   be  ob- 
served from  generation  to  generation,  to  keep  himself 
in  remembrance,    for   the   services   he  had  rendered 
them.     Would  he,  by  this  method,  give  suitable  honor 
to  his  king,  and  would  not  the  subjects  overlook  the 
sovereign  in  the  more  pleasing  and  interesting  view  of 
his  agent?  Or,  suppose  the  man,  who  was  most  prom- 
inent in  the  deliverance  of  our  country  from  foreign 
oppression,  should,  at  the  declaration  of  independence, 
have  appointed  a  day  of  festivity  to  be  observed  for 
ever,  to  keep  himself  in  their  remembrance,  who  would 
not  perceive  the  incongruity?  Who  would  not  shudder 
at  the  thought  that  a  sight  of  God  should  be  lost  in 
a  view  of  the  man? 

When  we  argue  that  the  honor  attached  to  this 
ordinance  should  be  given  to  the  Son,  we  would  not 
be  misunderstood.  We  hold  that  the  Father  and 
Holy  Spirit,  participate  with  him  the  glory  of  man's 
redemption. 


DIVINE    HONORS    ASCRIBED    TO    JESUS    CHRIST.         149 

When  we  look  upon  this  ordinance,  observe  its 
nature,  design,  and  manner  of  its  institution;  when  we 
consider  the  blessings,  which  are  involved  in  this  rep- 
resentation, and  the  magnitude  of  the  sin  of  profaning 
this  rite;  when  we  consider,  that  no  duty  is  more 
solemn,  or  momentous  than  this;  that  it  is  required  of 
every  believer;  that  it  is  a  religious  service  of  the 
highest  grade,  and  that  it  is  offered  to  ChrisI;  who 
can  withhold  the  conclusion,  that  we  should  honor  the 
Son,  even  as  we   honor  the  Father?* 

"  It  is  readily  admitted  that  the  word  worship,  the  act  of  kneeling  and  of  falling 
on  the  face  to  the  ground,  do  not  designate  the  degree  of  respect,  which  ia  offered 
to  an  object.  But  as  these  acts  wei'e  often  used  to  tender  homage  to  God,  it 
might  reasonably  be  expected  that  Jesus,  if  he  had  been  merely  a  creature, 
would  have  cautioned  his  worshippers  lest  they  should  offer  hina  the  highest 
degree  of  respect.  When  the  people  of  Lystra  would  fiave  sacrificed  to  Paul  and 
Barnabas.,  they  suffered  them  not;  and  told  them  plainly  that  th«y  were  men 
of  like  pwsions  with  themselves.  When  Cornelius  fell  down  at  Peter's  feet  and 
worshipped,  "Peter  took  him  up,  saying,  stand  up,  I  myself  also  am  a  man." 
When  St.  John  fell  down  to  worship  at  the  feet  of  the  angel,  who  had  shewed 
him  many  things,  the  angel  said,  "see  thou  do  it  not."  But  Christ  laid  no  pro- 
hibition upon  those  who  offered  him  similar  expressions  of  respect.  The  infer- 
ence is  plain,  that  there  was  no  danger  of  their  offering  him  too  high  a  degree  of 
homage 

"That  all  men  should  honor  the  Son,  even  as  they  honor  the  Father,"  John 
5:23.  It  has  been  attempted  to  weaken  this  testimony  by  improving  the  transla- 
tion in  this  manner;  ''that  all  men  should  honor  the  Son,  because  they  honor  the 
Father."  (See  Yates'  Vindication  of  Uiiitarianism.)  This  appears  to  be  not  only 
a  wrong  translation  of  the  particle,  x.^fS'*?,  but  a  perversion  of  the  design  of  the 
text.  The  text  is  the  effect,  or  consequence  of  the  preceding  verse.  The  Fath- 
er— hath  committed  all  judgment  unto  the  Son,  'tva,  to  the  end  that,  "all  men 
should  honor  the  Son."  "Though  'Ivct  commonli/ denotes  the  end,  for  tuhicha 
thing  is  done,  it  often  signifies  the  effect,  or  consequence  of  an  action  simply, 
without  expressing  the  intention  of  the  agent.  'Iva.  sometimes  denotes  the  effi- 
cient cause."  (Macknight.  See  Schleus.  Lex.  on  the  word.)  The  end,  or  con- 
sequence of  committing  all  judgment  unto  the  Son  is,  therefore,  that  all  men 
should  honor  him.  But  according  to  the  proposed  translation,  the  former  part 
of  the  verse  is  the  consequence  of  the  latter  part;  the  honoring  of  the  Son,  is  to 
be  the  effect,  or  consequence  of  honoring  the  Father.  By  this  construction  the 
force  of  the  particle, ''v<t,  which  connects  this  with  the  preceding  verse,  is  en- 
tirely destroyed. 

Ka-9-(»c,  which  stands  for  even  as,  in  our  translation,  is  compounded  of  kato.  Sc 
«;.  CI;  is  often  used  to  denote  comparison,  "fie  is  snmetinies  used  affirmatively,  and 
must  be  translated  indeed,  truly,  certainly,  actually.  Kara,  increases  the  meaning 
of  the  word,  with  which  it  is  compounded."  (Macknight. "I  According  to  these 
principles,  the  particle,  khQ-oi;,  is  used  to  compare  the  honoring  of  the  Son  with 
the  honoring  of  the  Father.  The  same  force,  or  degree  of  menning,  which  this 
particle  has  in  relHtion  to  the  honoring  of  the  Father,  the  same  it  has  in  relation 
to  the  honoring  of  the  Son.  See  the  force  of  KaS-ac  in  Mat.  21:6.  26:24.  Mark 
9:13,  and  15:18, 

\Ve  are  not  left  to  the  natural  ex|)lication  of  particles,  and  to  the  homage  which 
Christ  received  on  earth  from  his  disciples,  to  prove  that  he  is  entitled  to  divine 
honors,  and  that  he  is  a  proper  olject  of  supplication.  The  scriptures  testifv 
that  he  was  invoked;  that  he  was  addressed  by  prayer  after  he  left  the  world". 
In  addition  to  the  texts,  which  have  been  cited  already  for  this  pur])ose,  tlu  re  arc 
others  of  similarimport,  which  may  be  adduced,  and  on  which,  and  on  those,  which 
have  been  already  quoted,  we  would  make  some  critical  remarks.  I'snl,  in  the 
beginning  of  hi.s  first  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  says,  "Unto  the  chnich  of  God, 


150        DIVINE    HONORS    ASCRIBED    TO   JESUS    CHRIST. 

which  is  at  Corinth,  to  them  that  are  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  called  to  be 
saints,  with  all,  that  in  every  place  call  upon  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  our 
Lord."  I'his  phraseology  naturally  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  Christians,  in 
the  apostles'  time,  addressed  prayers  to  Jesus  Christ.  But  this  conclusion  is 
evaded  by  an  improved  versioti  of  this,  and  parallel  texts.  They  are  translated 
passively;  viz  called  hy,  or  after  the  name  of  the  Lord.  (See  the  Improved  Ver- 
sion of  the  N.  T,;  Yates'  Vindication  of  Unitarianism;  L.indsey's  Second  Address, 
&c.)  To  make  this  translation  consist  with  grammatical  principles,  it  is  coiiceived 
that  the  dative,  not  the  accusative  case,  ougtit  to  have  been  used  after  the  par- 
ticiple. This  observation  is  sanctioned  by  the  authority  of  the  LXX.  See  Isaiah 
43:7.  But  if  this  evidence  be  not  sufncientto  settle  the  meaning  of  the  word,  its 
common  use  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  and  by  the  Septuagint  owfi-A^ 
to  determine  whether  it  is  to  be  taken  passively  or  actively.  When  the  inspired 
writers  and  the  seventy  would  convey  the  idea  that  any  person  or  thing  was 
called  by  the  name  of  the  Lord,  they  uniformly  used,  as  far  as  I  haye  examined, 
a  different  pliraseology.  .\  translation,  which  violates  the  idiom  of  the  original, 
and  is  contrary  to  the  usual  meaning  of  words  and  phrases  does  not  become 
critical  inquirers  after  truth. 

"For  this  thing  I  besought  the  Lord  thrice.  And  he  said  unto  me,  my  grace  is 
sufficient  for  thee;  for  my  strength  [J'uvcijuU)  is  made  perfect  in  weakness;  most 
gladly,  therefore,  will  I  rather  glory  in  my  infirmities,  that  the  power  (J't/va^iV) 
of  Christ  may  rest  upon  me,"  .'Cor.  12:8,9-  The  latter  part  of  this  passage  plainly 
shews  that  the  Lord,  whom  Paul  besought  thrice,  was  Christ.  Here  ve  have  a  pray- 
er offered  to  him  without  any  objection  arising  from  the  passive  form  of  the  verb; 
and  it  might  reasonably  be  expected  without  a7iij  objections  arising  from  the 
phraseology,  or  from  the  circumstances.  But  in  opposition  to  this  expectation, 
and  to  the  natural  tenor  of  the  passage,  as  it  is  admitted  by  the  most  candid  Uni- 
tarians, it  is  stated  that,  "St.  Paul  appears  here  to  have  directed  his  prayer  to 
God,  the  Father.  N.  B.  The  apostles  were  not  so  exact  in  the  use  of  the  words. 
Lord,  Savior  and  the  like,  which  they  indifferently  gave  both  to  Ciod  and  to 
Christ,  never  supposing  that  any  would  mistake  their  Lord  and  .Vlaster,  so  lately 
born  and  living  amongst  men,  to  be  the  supreme  God  and  object  of  worship." 
(Lindsey's  Apology,  p.  147.)  It  is  of  no  use  to  argue  with  men  on  this  subject, 
who  accuse  the  ai)ostles  with  a  disregard  to  exactness  in  the  application  of  the 
names,  "Lord,  Savior  and  the  like."  It  is  of  no  use  to  i-eason  with  them  upon 
the  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  till  they  are  established  in  the  belief  of  its  divine 
authority;  ttiat  it  was  written  Avith  exactness. 

But  when  it  is  admitted  that  Christ  was  the  object  of  the  apostle's  invocation, 
who  can  object  to  offering  him  prayer?  But  it  is  thought  "probable,  that,  when 
Paul  besought  him,  he  was  present  with  the  Apostle  either  in  vision,  or  person- 
ally." (Yates.)  From  this  suppositi>in  it  is  inferred  that  it  is  not  proper  to  address 
prayer  to  Christ,  unless  he  be,  in  some  manner,  visible.  If  visibility  be  a  necessary 
qualification  in  Christ  to  be  an  object  of  supplication,  why  is  so  much  labor  spent 
to  shew  that  he  did  not  receive  it,  and  was  not  entitled  to  it,  when  he  was 
visibly  present  on  earth?  If  visibility  be  a  necessary  qualification  in  a  being  in 
order  to  receive  divine  worship,  then  God  the  Father,  is  destitute  of  a  necessary 
qualification. 

"And  they  stoned  Stephen,  calling  upon  God,  and  saying,  Lerd  Jesus,  receive 
my  Spirit;  and  he  kneeled  down  ami  cried  with  a  loud  voice.  Lord  lay  nut  this 
sin  to  their  charge,"  Acts  7:59,  60.  If  ever  a  man  was  qualified  to  make  an 
appropriate  prayer,  and  to  direct  it  to  a  proper  object,  it  seems  that  Stephen  was 
qualified.  He -was  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  He  was  just  going  to  enter  the  world 
of  spirits.  He  saw,  either  ocularly,  or  mentally,  the  Son  of  man  or  the  right 
hand  of  God;  of  course  he  saw  both.  In  this  plenitude  of  inspiration,  in  this 
most  solemn  and  interesting  situation,  in  view  of  death,  of  heaven,  and  of  the 
glory  of  (iod,  he  breathed  out  his  soul  in  jirayer  to  that  Savior,  in  whose  service 
he  had  lived;  for  whose  cause  he  was  about  to  die;  and  who  was  able  to  save 
his  soul.  It  is  in  vain  to  urge  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  Stephen  as  the  prin- 
cipal ground  of  his  petition  to  Christ.  The  circumstances  of  the  supplicant  make 
no  alteration  in  the  being  supplicated.  The  circumstance  of  Christ's  being  seen 
or  unseen  makes  no  alteration  in  his  will  or  power  to  hear.  He,  who  knew  what 
was  in  man,  when  he  was  upon  earth,  is  not  limited  in  knowledge  now  he  is  in 
heaven.  When  he  was  upon  the  cross  he  granted  the  humble  request  of  a 
penitent.  Now  he  is  upon  a  throne,  he  is  not  less  entitled  to  prayer;  nor  is  he 
less  able  to  grant  requests.  It  must  be,  at  all  times,  proper  to  call  upon  him, 
because  he  ig  always  able  to  save  to  the  uttermost. 


CHRIST'S  RAISING  THE  DEAD,  AND  JUDGING 
THE  WORLD,  ARE  EVIDENCES  OF  HIS 
DIVINITY. 


"He  hath  appointed  a  day  in  the  which  he  will  judge 
the  world  in  righteousness  bj  that  man,  whom  he  hath 
ordained,"  Acts  17:31.  In  every  part  of  Christ's  char- 
acter; in  every  office  which  he  sustains;  and  in  every 
work,  which  he  performs,  there  is  evidence  of  his 
divinity.  The  sacred  scriptures  afford  abundant  proof 
that  he  will  raise  the  dead.  Christ  declared  his  power 
to  raise  himself  from  the  dead.  Speaking  of  laying 
down  his  life,  he  said, "/  have  power  to  lay  it  down;  and 
/  have  power  to  take  it  again,"  John  10:10.  "Destroy 
this  temple  and  in  three  days  /  will  raise  it  up."  He 
spake  of  the  temple  of  his  body.  It  is  no  more  incredi- 
ble that  Christ  should  raise  his  own  body,  than  he 
should  raise  any  other  human  body.  The  same  power, 
which  could  raise  one,  could  raise  the  other.  The 
resurrection  of  the  body  of  Christ  is  attributed  to 
God.  The  apostle  Peter  in  his  sermon  to  a  mixed 
multitude  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  preached  Christ. 
Among  other  things  he  said,  "This  Jesus  hath  God 
raised  up.  Ye  killed  the  Prince  of  life,  wliom  God 
hath  raised  from  the  dead.  Him  God  raised  up  the 
third  day,  and  shewed  him  openly."  The  apostle 
Paul  to  the  Romans  makes  this  article  oi"  belief  essen- 
tial to  salvation.  "If  thou  shalt  believe  in  thine  heart 
that  God  hath  raised  him  (i.  e.  Christ)  from  the  dead, 
thou  shalt  be  saved."  Again  he  says,  ''God  hath  both 
raised  up  the  Lord,  and  will  also  raise   up  us  by  his 


J  52  EVIDENCES    OF    CHRIST's    DIVINITY. 

own  power."  Many  other  passages  in  the  sacred 
scriptures  assert  that  God  raised  up  Christ.  If  the 
self-same  work,  the  resurrection  of  the  body  of  Jesus, 
is  attributed  in  the  same  unquahfied  manner,  both  to 
Christ  and  to  God,  it  follows  that  Christ  is  God.  Upon 
this  ground  there  is  no  impropriety  in  saying  that 
Christ  raised  himself,  and  that  God  raised  him  from  the 
dead. 

The  scriptures  furnish  abundant  evidence  that  Christ 
will  raise  the  dead.  Christ  himself  asserts,  "The  hour 
is  coming,  in  the  which  all  that  are  in  the  graves  shall 
hear  his  voice,  and  shall  come  forth."  Jesus  said  of 
himself,  "I  am  the  resurrection  and  the  life."  The 
apostle  Paul,  contrasting  Christ  with  Adam,  says,  "For 
since  by  man  came  death,  by  man  also  came  the  res- 
urrection of  the  dead."  To  the  Thessalonians  he 
writes  thus,  "The  Lord  himself  shall  descend  from 
heaven,  with  a  shout,  with  the  voice  of  the  arch-angel, 
and  with  the  trump  of  God;  and  the  dead  in  Christ 
shall  rise  first."  The  general  resurrection  is  no  less 
attributed  in  the  scriptures  to  God.  The  apostle  Paul, 
in  his  plea  before  Agrippa,  inquires,  "Why  should  it 
be  thought  a  thing  incredible  with  you  that  God  should 
raise  the  dead.^^"  To  the  Corinthians  he  declares  the 
same  sentiment,  ^'■God  hath  both  raised  up  the  Lord, 
and  will  also  raise  up  us  by  his  own  power."  As  the 
scriptures  attribute  the  resurrection  to  Christ  as  abso- 
lutely as  to  God,  it  is  natural  to  infer  that  Christ  is 
God;  that  there  is  such  an  inseparable  union  between 
him  and  God  the  Father,  that  the  same  work  may, 
with  propriety,  be  attributed  to  each. 

The  resurrection  of  Christ's  body  is  attributed  to 
the  Father,  and  to  the  Son,  and  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  The 
apostle  Paul,  in  his  salutation,  attributes  it  to  the 
Father.  "Paul,  an  apostle,  not  of  men,  neither  by  man, 
but  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  God  the  Father,  who  raised 
him  from  the  dead."  Christ,  upon  the  subject  of  his 
own  resurrection,  says,  "Destroy  this  temple,  and  in 
three  days  /  will  raise  it  up.     I  have  power  to  lay  it 


153 

(i.  e.  his  life,)  down  and  I  have  power  to  take  it  again." 
The  same  work  is  attributed  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 
"Christ  also  hath  once  suffered  for  sin; — being  put  to 
death  in  the  flesh,  but  quickened  by  the  Spirit^ — 
"As  the  Father  raiseth  up  the  dead  and  quickeneth 
them,  even  so  the  Son  quickeneth  whom  he  will.  Know- 
ing that  he  which  raised  up  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  raise 
up  us  also  by  Jesus."  The  two  last  passages,  and  many 
others  attribute  the  resurrection  indiscriminately  to 
the  Father  or  the  Son.  As  the  work  of  creation  is 
sometimes  attributed  to  God,  sometimes  to  the  Father, 
to  the  Son,  to  the  Spirit,  in  like  manner  is  the  resur- 
rection attributed  to  them.  The  observations  of  the 
learned  Macknight  on  this  subject,  in  a  note  on  I  Peter 
3:18,  are  important.  "As  Christ  was  conceived  in  the 
womb  of  his  mother,  by  the  Holy  Spirit;  Luke  1:35, 
so  he  was  raised  from  the  dead  by  the  same  Spirit; 
on  which  account  he  is  said,  1  Tim.  3:16,  to  have  been 
justified  by  the  Spirit;  and  Heb.  9:14,  to  have  offered 
himself  without  fault  to  God  through  the  eternal  Spirit. 
it  is  true  the  resurrection  of  Christ,  is  ascribed  to  the 
Father,  I  Cor.  6:14.  2  Cor.  4:14.  Ephes.  1:20.  But 
that  is  not  inconsistent  with  Peter's  affirmation  in  this 
verse.  For  the  Father  may,  with  the  strictest  pro- 
priety, be  said  to  have  done  what  the  Spirit  did  by  his 
appointment;  especially  as  it  was  done  to  shew  that 
God  acknowledged  Jesus  to  be  his  Son:  What  our 
Lord  said  concerning  his  own  resurrection,  John  2:19, 
Destroy  this  temple  and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up, 
is  to  be  understood  in  the  same  manner.  For  haying 
told  the  Jews,  John  10:18,  /  have  power  to  lay  down 
my  life.,  and  I  have  power  to  take  it  again^  he  added,  this 
commandment  1  received  of  my  Father.  Christ's  resur- 
rection being  an  example  as  well  as  a  proof  of  our  res- 
urrection, he  was  raised  by  the  agency  of  the  Spirit, 
perhaps,  to  shew  that  we  shall  be  raised  by  the  same 
power,  exerted  agt-eeably  to  the  will  of  God  and  of 
Christ;  on  which  account  the  resurrection  of  the  dead 
is  ascribed  sometimes  to  the  Father,  Acts  26:8.  1  Cor. 
20 


154  EVIDENCES    OF    CHRISt's    DIVINITY. 

6:14.  Heb.  11:19;  but  more  frequently  to  the  Son, 
John  5:28.  6:39,  40.  1  Cor.  1.5:21,  &c.  1  Thess.  6:16, 
&c.  As  the  resurrection  is  attributed  indiscriminately 
to  the  Father  and  the  Son,  it  appears  there  is  a  union 
between  them,  which  does  not  subsist  between  two 
distinct  natures.  As  the  Son  acts  insubordination  to, 
and  by  the  appointment  of,  the  Father,  what  he  does 
may,  with  propriety,  be  attributed  to  the  Father.  As 
the  Spirit  acts  in  subordination  to,  and  by  the  appoint- 
ment of,  the  Son,  what  he  does  may,  with  propriety, 
be  attributed  to  the  Son.  As  there  is  a  union  of 
nature  subsisting  between  the  Father,  the  Son  and  the 
Spirit;  as  the  two  latter  act  in  offices  subordinate  to 
that  of  the  former,  the  same  work  may  be  attributed 
to  each  individually,  or  to  them  all  collectively.  Upon 
this  ground,  the  resurrection  of  Christ's  body,  and  the 
general  resurrection,  may  be  attributed  to  the  Father, 
to  the  Son,  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  to  God,  without 
these  distinctions. 

It  is  impossible  to  determine  how  great  are  the 
powers  of  the  highest  created  intelligence,  or  what 
he  could,  or  could  not  do  by  his  native  strength.  But 
there  are  certain  works  recorded  in  the  Scriptures, 
which  were  effected  by  divine  power.  "In  the  begin- 
ning God  created  the  heavens  and  the  earth.  The 
Lord  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground  and 
breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life;  and  man 
became  a  living  soul."  It  appears  that  it  would 
require  no  less  power,  knowledge  and  wisdom  to 
reorganize  and  reanimate  a  human  body  reduced  to 
dust,  than  it  required  originally  to  form  one  of  dust. 
He,  who  will  raise  the  dead,  must  have  knowledge  of 
all  the  human  bodies  deceased  from  the  beginning  to 
the  end  of  the  world.  He  must  discriminate  between 
that  matter,  which  composed  those  bodies  and  other 
matter.  He  must  know  whether  that  matter,  which 
was  united  with  the  soul  at  the  time  of  separation,  or 
whether  the  matter,  which  was  united  with  it  at  some 
other  period,  or  whether  all  the  matter,  which  had 


EVIDENCES    OF    CHRIST's    DIVINITY.  155 

ever  been  attached  to  it,  is  to  be  raised.  At  different 
ages  the  body  is  composed  of  different  matter.  It 
sometimes  occurs  that,  in  consequence  of  amputation, 
different  parts  of  the  body  are  laid  in  places  far  re- 
mote from  each  other.  Many  human  bodies  have 
been  consumed  by  beasts  of  prey  and  by  fishes  of  the 
sea;  and  have  made  additions  to  their  bodies.  Souie 
of  the  human  race  have  been  devoured  by  their  fellow 
creatures;  and  one  human  body  has  become  incorpo- 
rated with  another.  What  eye  can  bring  into  one 
view  all  the  disorganized  human  matter  which  from 
the  first  to  the  last  age  of  the  world,  lies  scattered 
through  the  earth?  What  eye  can  distinguish  between 
human  dust  and  common  dust?  What  eye  can  distin- 
guish between  human  matter  and  those  animal  bodies, 
which  have  been  nourished  by  it;  or  can  distinguish 
between  human  bodies,  which  have  been  blended  by 
cannibals?  What  power  can,  with  one  call,  collect 
from  the  four  winds  all  the  slumbering  dust  of  the 
whole  human  family?  What  wisdom  can  reorganize 
the  inanimate  bodies  of  the  human  race;  and  give  to 
each  its  former  proportion,  features  and  likeness;  and 
unite  with  each  its  own  spirit?  What  power,  knowl- 
edge, and  wisdom,  are  competent  to  the  performance 
of  this  work?  This  appears  to  be  as  great  as  the 
works  of  God;  and  it  appears  that  divinity  only  is 
equal  to  its  accomplishment. 

Christ  will  not  only  reorganize  human  bodies,  but 
he  will  effect  a  certain  change  upon  them.  The  bodies 
of  the  righteous,  whether  in  the  grave,  or  alive  upon 
the  earth,  will  be  made  incorruptible  and  spiritual. 
"We  look  (says  St.  Paul)  for  the  Savior,  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  who  shall  change  our  vile  body,  that  it 
may  be  fashioned  like  unto  his  glorious  body."  It  is 
probable  that  the  bodies  of  the  wicked  will  undergo  a 
change  by  the  resurrection,  not  less  than  that  of  the 
righteous;  that  they  will  appear  as  much  more  inglo- 
rious, as  the  righteous  will  appear  more  glorious  than 
they  did  in  this  world,     fhe  prophet  Daniel  observes, 


156  EVIDENCES    OP   CHRISt's    DIVINITY. 

"Many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth 
shall  awake,  some  to  eferlasting  life,  and  some  to 
shame  and  everlasting  contempt.'^''  This  relates  prima- 
rily to  Israel;  but  it  undoubtedly  alludes  to  the  resur- 
rection at  the  end  of  the  world.  He  alone,  who 
formed  the  natural  body,  can  make  it  a  spiritual  and 
glorious  body;  or  change  it  for  its  shame  and  everlasting 
contempt. 

After  Christ  has  raised  the  dead  he  will  judge  the 
world.  The  Scriptures  abundantly  testify  that  Christ 
will  be  Judge  at  the  last  day.  "The  Son  of  man  shall 
come  in  his  glory  and  all  the  holy  angels  with  him; 
and  then  shall  he  sit  upon  the  throne  of  his  glory. 
And  before  him  shall  be  gathered  all  nations,  and  he 
shall  separate  them,  one  from  another,  as  a  shepherd 
divideth  the  sheep  from  the  goats;  and  he  shall  set 
the  sheep  on  his  right  hand,  but  the  goats  on  the  left. 
The  Father  judgeth  no  man;  but  hath  committed  all 
judgment  unto  the  Son;  and  hath  given  him  authority 
to  execute  judgment  because  he  is  the  Son  of  man," 
When  Peter  preached  Christ  to  Cornelius  and  to  those, 
who  were  with  him,  he  said,  "He  commanded  us  to 
preach  unto  the  people,  and  to  testify  that  it  is  he, 
which  was  ordained  of  God  to  be  Judge  of  quick  and 
dead.  We  shall  all  stand  before  the  judgment  seat  of 
Christ.^^  The  apostle  Paul  charged  Peter  "before 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  shaW  judge  the  quick  and 
the  dead  at  his  appearing  and  his  kingdom." 

The  judgment  of  the  world  is  also  attributed  to 
God.  "He,  (i.  e.  Jehovah)  shall  judge  the  world  with 
righteousness,  and  the  people  with  his  truth."  The 
judgment  of  God  is  according  to  truth.  I  saw  the 
dead  small  and  great  stand  before  God,  and  the  books 
were  opened,  and  another  book  was  opened,  which 
is  the  book  of  life,  and  the  dead  were  judged  out  of 
those  things,  which  were  written  in  the  books,  accord- 
ing to  then-  works.  He  hath  appointed  a  day,  in  the 
which  he  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  by  that 
man  {iv  uvdi^i)  whom  he   h#th  ordained,  Acts  17:31. 


157 

In  the  day  when  God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men 
by  Jesus  Christ,  (Sia  /vjo-oO  x^iarov.^  In  that  passage, 
in  which  it  is  said  God  will  judge  the  world  by  that 
man,  the  word  in  the  original,  translated  by,  frequently 
signifies  in.  Admitting  this  translation  to  be  correct, 
the  text  will  stand  thus,  "He  hath  appointed  a  day  in  the 
which  he  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness  in  that 
man,  whom  he  hath  ordained."  This  is  parallel  with 
another  passage  of  scripture,  which  says,  "God  was 
in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  unto  himself."  The 
original  words  in  both  texts  are  the  same.  In  the 
other  passage,  in  which  it  is  said,  "In  the  day  when 
God  shall  judge  the  secrets  of  men  by  Jesus  Christ." 
The  original  word  rendered  by,  (with  a  genitive)  is 
connected  sometimes  with  the  efficient  cause;  and 
sometimes  it  signifies  in*  Admitting  these  construc- 
tions, and  it  follows  that  Christ  was  God,  or  that 
God  was  in  Christ.  When  it  is  asserted  that  the 
Father  judgeth  not;  but  that  God  judgeth  and  Christ 
judgeth,  it  is  a  fair  inference,  that  Christ  is  the  God 
who  judgeth. 

Christ  will  pronounce  sentence  upon  the  human 
race,  and  he  will  distribute  reward  and  punishment. 
"The  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  the  glory  of  his  Father, 
with  his  angels;  and  then  he  shall  reward  every  man 
according  to  his  works,"  Matt.  16:27.  To  them  on 
his  right  hand  he  will  say,  "Come,  ye  blessed  of  my 
Father,  inherit  the  kingdom  prepared  for  you  from 
the  foundation  of  the  world,"  Mat.  25:34.  "Then 
shall  the  righteous  shine  forth  as  the  sun  in  the  king- 
dom of  their  Father,"  Mat.  13:43. 

Christ  will  inflict  punishment  on  the  wicked. 
"Then  shall  he  say  to  them  on  the  left  hand,  Depart 
from  me  ye  cursed,  into  everlasting  fire,  prepared  for 
the  devil  and  his  angels.  These  shall  go  away  into 
everlasting  punishment.  The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  shall 
be  revealed  from  heaven  with  his  mighty  angels,  in 
flaming  fire,  taking  vengeance  on  them  that  know  not 

•  See  M  acknight  on  iTw- 


158  EVIDENCES    OF    CHRISt's    DIVINITY. 

God;  and  obey  not  the  gospel  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 
Who  shall  be  punished  with  everlasting  destruction 
from  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  and  from  the  glory 
of  his  power.     The  wrath  of  God  abideth  on    him." 

He  that  will  judge  the  world,  must  know  all  the 
secrets  of  the  human  heart,  and  all  the  actions  of 
human  life.  He  must  know  the  motive,  he  must  know 
the  quality  of  every  act.  He  must  know  the  differ- 
ent degrees  of  guilt,  of  different  sins;  and  he  must 
know  the  exact  proportion  of  reward,  which  is  prom- 
ised to  the  various  servants  of  God.  What  intelli- 
gence possesses  this  vast  extent  of  knowledge?  What 
intelligence  can  hold  the  balance,  and  weigh  with 
perfect  accuracy  every  thought,  word,  and  action  of 
the  human  race?  What  intelligence  can  hold  the  bal- 
ance, and  weigh  out  retribution  in  just  proportion  to 
human  characters?  What  intelligence  can  hold  the 
scales  of  justice  in  one  hand,  and  the  scales  of  mercy 
in  the  other;  weigh  with  both,  without  partiality,  and 
without  interference?  He,  whose  eyes  are  as  a  flame 
of  fire,  who  searcheth  the  hearts,  and  trieth  the  reins 
of  the  children  of  men;  he,  whose  mercy  unites  with 
justice  without  counteraction;  he,  who  unites  in  him- 
self divinity  and  humanity;  he  alone,  is  competent  to 
judge  between  God  and  man. 

The  awful  grandeur,  which  will  attend  Christ  at 
the  last  day,  proves  his  superior  nature  and  dignity. 
"When  the  Son  of  man  shall  come  in  his  glory,  and 
all  the  holy  angels  with  him,  then  shall  he  sit  upon 
the  throne  of  his  glory."  He  will  come  "in  the  clouds 
of  heaven,  with  power  and  great  glory;  and  he  shall 
send  his  angels  with  a  great  sound  of  a  trumpet,  and 
they  shall  gather  together  his  elect  from  the  four 
winds,  from  one  end  of  heaven  to  the  other.  Then 
shall  he  sit  upon  the  throne  of  his  glory.  Before  him 
shall  be  gathered  all  nations."  To  add,  if  possible,  to 
the  solemnity  and  grandeur  of  this  scene,  "The 
heavens  shall  pass  away  with  a  great  noise,  and  the 


EVIDENCES    OF    CHRIST's    DIVINITY.  159 

elements  shall  melt  with  fervent  heat,  the  earth  also, 
and  the  works  that  are  therein  shall  be  burnt  up." 
Who  is  this  personage,  and  Avhat  is  his  nature,  who 
will  display  all  this  power  and  authority;  who  will 
receive  all  the  honors,  which  heaven  and  earth  can 
bestow,  and  will  sit  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Father.'* 
It  is  he,  who  was  in  a  manger.  It  is  he,  who  thought 
it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with  God.  It  is  he,  who 
searcheth  the  hearts  and  trieth  the  reins  of  the  chil- 
dren of  men;  who  is  "the  true  God;"  who  is  "God 
over  all,  blessed  for  ever." 


ON    THE   HUMILIATION  AND   EXALTATION  OF 
JESUS  CHRIST. 


"Who,  being  in  the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not  rob- 
bery to  be  equal  with  God;  but  made  himself  of  no 
reputation,  and  took  upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant, 
and  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  men;  and  being  found 
in  fashion  as  a  man,  he  humbled  himself,  and  became 
obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross. 
Wherefore  God  hath  highly  exalted  him,  and  given 
him  a  name,  which  is  above  every  name;  that  at  the 
name  of  Jesus  every  knee  should  bow,  of  things  in 
heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the 
earth;  and  that  every  tongue  should  confess  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father," 
Philippians  2:6 — 11.  Much  ingenuity  and  learning 
have  been  bestowed  upon  this  quotation  of  scripture 
to  deprive  it  of  its  natural  meaning,  and  to  prove  the 
Son's  essential  inferiority  to  the  Father.  The  phrase, 
"being  in  the  form  of  God,"  has  been  thought  to 
import  no  more  than  that  similarity  of  nature,  which 
may  subsist  between  a  creature  and  its  Creator;  as 
God  made  man  in  his  own  image.  If  Christ  had  been 
in  the  form  of  God  in  this  low  sense  only,  he  would 
have  thought  it  robbery  to  represent  himself  to  be 
equal  with  God.  He  would  have  considered  it  an 
infringement  upon  the  divine  prerogative.  There 
would  be  no  pertinency  in  the  assertion  of  the  apostle, 
that  he  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  men,  and  was 
found  in  fashion  as  a  man.  It  would  not  be  true  that 
he  humbled  himself  by  appearing  in  this  manner. 


Christ's  humiliation  and  exaltation.         161 

The  time,  in  which  ihe  apostle  says  Christ  was  in 
the  form  of  God,  was  prior  to  his  incarnation.  The 
wordybrm(/xo§Cf)vi)inthis  passage  does  not  signify  nature 
or  essential  attributes.  It  signifies  the  external  appear- 
ance, or  similitude.  It  signifies  that  visible  light,  in 
which  the  Deity  dwells,  which  no  man  can  approach 
unto;  and  by  which  he  appeared  to  the  world  before 
the  incarnation.  When  Christ  was  transfigured,  his 
form  (according  to  the  original)  was  changed;  i.  e. 
his  outward  appearance  became  different  from  what 
it  was  before.  Whatever  the  jorm,  of  God  was,  in 
which  Christ  was  before  he  appeared  in  human  nature, 
he  laid  it  aside  while  he  tarried  upon  earth,  previous 
to  his  crucifixion.  He  made  himself  of  no  reputation. 
In  the  original  it  is,  he  divested  himself;  he  laid 
aside  those  glorious  appearances  which  he  exhibited 
in  heaven;  and  relinquished  those  divine  honors  which 
he  there  received.  But  during  his  humiliation,  he 
did  not  lay  aside  his  divinity;  he  did  not  lay  aside  his 
authority,  nor  his  right  to  divine  honors.  He  only 
concealed  the  glories  of  his  divine  nature,  under  the 
veil  of  humanity.  On  particular  occasions  he  dis- 
played divine  power  in  the  performance  of  miracles. 
At  a  time  when  he  was  with  his  disciples  on  a  moun- 
tain, his  appearance  was  changed.  "His  face  did 
shine  as  the  sun,  and  his  raiment  was  white  as  the 
light.  Jesus  charged  them,  saying,  tell  the  vision  to 
no  man  until  the  Son  of  man  be  risen  again  from  the 
dead."  Christ  used  great  precaution  against  display- 
ing the  glories  of  his  nature.  W^hen  he  did  display 
them,  he  did  it  on  special  occasions,  for  the 
special  purpose  of  giving  evidence  that  he  was  the 
Messiah. 

"Christ,  being  .in  the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not 
robbery  to  be  equal  with  God."  The  latter  part  of 
this  passage  in  the  original,  has  been  variously  under- 
stood, and  variously  translated.  Some  have  thought 
it  imports  that  Christ  did  not  think  of  the  robbery  of 
21 


162        Christ's  humiliation  and  exaltation. 

making  himself  equal  with  God;  that  he  was  conscious 
he  had  no  claim  to  such  high  pretensions;  and  there- 
fore, he  did  not  make  them.  Others  have  thus  trans- 
lated the  text,  he  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  like 
God.  This  translation  reduces  the  sense  of  the  origi- 
nal. The  other  wholly  perverts  it.  The  original 
word,  (/<3-«,)  which  is  rendered  like,  literally  signifies 
equal,  as  the  translators  of  the  Bible  have  rendered  it. 
If  like  were  a  correct  translation  of  the  original  word, 
the  apostle  made  no  advance  in  sense,  as  he  progressed 
in  his  observations.  It  would  be  worse  than  tautology 
to  say,  "who  being  in  the  form"  (or  likeness)  of  God, 
thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  like  God.  The  phrase, 
"form  of  God,"  imports  divine  likeness.  Having  said 
that  he  was  in  the  likeness  of  God,  it  amounts  to 
nothing,  to  say,  it  was  not  robbery  to  be  in  the  like- 
ness of  God;  or  to  be  what  he  was.  The  apostle  Paul 
was  too  well  versed  in  language  to  be  guilty  of  such 
gross  incorrectness.  Likeness  does  not  necessarily 
imply  equ iility.  Let  the  apostle  say,  who  being  in  the 
form  or  likeness  of  God,  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be 
equal  with  God,  and  he  rises  in  his  ideas,  as  he  pro- 
gresses in  his  observations.  Judicious  critics  in  the 
Greek  language  admit  that  the  translation  of  this 
passage,  as  it  stands  in  the  Bible,  is  correct.  If  any 
creature  should  claim  equality  with  God,  it  would  be 
a  daring  robbery  of  divine  honors.  If  Christ  be  not 
eternal,  self-existent  and  independent,  he  cannot  justly 
claim  equality  with  God.  A  learned  and  distinguished 
divine,*  of  the  beginning  of  the  last  century,  speaking 
of  the  correctness  of  the  translation  of  the  text  under 
consideration,  as  it  stands  in  the  Bible,  observes,  "The 
ancientest  versions  of  the  New  Testament  favor  this 
rendering;  the  Greek  and  Latin  fathers,  from  the 
fourth  century  downwards,  do  as  plainly  countenance 
it.  Nay,  Tertullian  of  the  second  or  third  century, 
seems  to  have  understood  it  in  the  same  sense.     The 

•  Waterland. 


Christ's  humiliation  and  exaltation.         163 

words   will,  in  strict  propriety,  bear  it;  and  not  only 
so,  but  more  naturally  and  properly  than  any  other." 

Although  Christ  claimed  equality  with  God;  yet 
"he  made  himself"  of  no  reputation;"  he  divested  him- 
self of  the  form  of  God,  and  relinquished  those  honors, 
which  he  had  received;  "and  took  upon  him  the  form 
of  a  servant,  and  was  made"  (or  born)  "in  the  like- 
ness of  men.  And  being  found  in  fashion  as  a  man, 
he  humbled  himself  and  became  obedient  unto  death, 
even  the  death  of  the  cross."  His  taking  the  form 
of  a  servant,  does  not  mean  that  he  was  actually  a 
servant;  that  he  was  under  those  restraints,  which  are 
peculiar  to  a  state  of  servitude.  But  he  had  the 
appearance  of  a  servant.  He  performed  the  duties 
of  a  servant.  He  said  to  his  disciples,  "I  am  among 
you  as  he  who  serveth."  Like  a  servant,  he  had  no 
property;  he  lived  in  poverty,  and  was  used  with 
contempt.  "At  length  he  died  the  death  of  a  con- 
demned slave;  being  publicly  scourged  and  crucified." 

Christ's  being  born  in  the  likeness  of  men  does  not 
mean  that  he  had  the  appearance  of  a  man  without 
the  reality.  The  original  word  (d/xoiw/xa)  signifies  not 
only  likeness,  but  sometimes  sameness  of  nature.  (See 
Macknight  on  the  text.)  Christ  had  a  human  body; 
he  had  human  passions.  He  felt  those  joys  and  afflic- 
tions, which  are  common  to  humanity.  "Being  found 
in  fashion  as  a  man,  he  humbled  himself  and  became 
obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross." 
He  not  only  took  upon  himself  human  nature  and  ap- 
peared in  fashion  as  a  man,  exposed  to  all  the  natural 
evils  common  to  human  life.  He  not  only  humbled 
himself  to  do  the  obliging  offices  of  a  servant;  but  he 
became  obedient  unto  death,  even  to  the  most  igno- 
minious death.  He,  who  had  shared  divine  honors 
in  heaven  with  the  Father,  condescended  to  assume 
human  nature;  to  appear  in  the  lowest  condition  of 
human  life;  to  receive  all  the  ignominy  and  reproach 
which  the  world  could  cast   upon  him;  and   to  suffer 


164        Christ's  humiliation  and  exaltation. 

his  body,  with  which  he  had  been  in  the  most  intimate 
union,  to  expire  under  the  tortures  of  the  cross. 

If  Christ  was  only  a  man,  there  is  nothing  very 
pecuhar  in  his  state  of  humiHation.  There  is  nothing 
surprising  that  a  man  should  have  been  born  in  the 
likeness  of  men  and  be  found  in  fashion  as  a  man. 
There  is  nothing  surprising  that  a  man  should  be  in 
the  form  of  a  servant  and  do  the  duties  of  a  servant. 
It  is  not  a  singular  case  that  a  man  has  suffered  the 
tortures  of  the  cross.  Nor  is  it  a  singular  case  that  a 
man  has  died  in  defence  of  his  religion,  whether  it  was 
true  or  false.  But  that  he,  who  claimed  equality  with 
God,  should  descend  to  this  low  condition  is  a  degree 
of  humiliation  to  which  created  intelligence  cannot 
descend. 

On  account  of  Christ's  exceedingly  great  condescen- 
sion and  humiliation,Godhath  exalted  him  exceedmgly; 
"and  given  him  a  name,  which  is  above  every  name." 
As  a  consequence  or  reward  of  Christ's  sufferings, 
God  hath  exalted  him.  He  hath  raised  him  from  that 
low  condition,  in  which  he  was  upon  earth,  and  exalted 
him  to  that  glory,  which  he  had  with  the  Father 
before  the  world  was.  Christ  humbled  himself  in 
union  with  human  nature,  and  he  will  be  exalted  in 
union  with  the  same  nature.  Some  have  supposed 
that  Christ's  exaltation  has  made  real  additions  to  his 
dignity  and  glory.  They  argue  that  divinity  is  inca- 
pable of  advancement,  and  of  course  they  infer  that 
he  is  not  divine.  It  is  readily  granted  that  no  real 
accession  can  be  made  to  divinity.  It  is  as  perfect 
and  glorious  at  one  point  in  duration  as  at  another. 
Before  creation,  before  redemption,  Christ  was  as  per- 
fect in  his  nature  as  he  is  now.  He  had  power  to 
create,  and  he  had  power  to  redeem.  As  he  had  not 
then  exercised  those  powers,  the  honor  of  those  works 
could  not  be  actually  ascribed  to  him.  If  he  had  not 
descended  from  heaven  to  earth,  and  stooped  to  the 
lowest  conditions  of  human  nature,  he  could  not  be 
glorified  for  his  condescension.     If  he  had  not  suflfered 


Christ's  humiliation  and  exaltation.         1615 

and  died,  the  glory  of  redemption  would  not  have 
been  ascribed  to  him.  The  attributes,  which  he  has 
displayed  in  the  work  of  redemption,  appear  more 
distinguishing  than  those  he  displayed  in  creation.  He 
appears  more  exalted  than  he  would  have  done,  if  he 
had  not  performed  this  work.  God  has  given  him 
the  name  Jesus,  signifying  Savior,  which  is  above 
every  name;  and  he  requires  all,  who  are  in  heaven, 
in  earth,  and  under  the  earth,  to  worship  him,  not  only 
as  Creator  and  Lord,  but  as  Savior  of  the  world. 
Before  his  incarnation  he  was  not  honored  as  actual 
Savior.  But  since  he  has  wrought  out  a  complete 
redemption,  and  returned  to  heaven,  a  new  glory  ap- 
pears, and  higher  honors  are  attributed  to  him  than 
those  he  received  before  his  incarnation.  After  he 
had  completed  the  work  of  redemption  by  rising  from 
the  dead,  he  declared  to  his  disciples  that  all  author- 
ity was  given  to  him  in  heaven  and  in  earth;  and  when 
he  ascended  to  heaven  he  was  seated  on  the  right 
hand  of  the  Father.  Because  he  was  the  Son  of  man; 
because  he  did  great  and  benevolent  deeds  in  his 
union  with  human  nature  all  judgment  was  committed 
to  him. 

This  high  exaltation  of  the  Son  will  be  to  the  glory 
of  God  the  Father.  Is  it  possible  that  any  creature 
is  raised  to  such  an  amazing  degree  of  elevation  above 
every  other  creature,  and  be  the  object  of  their  most 
respectful  homage.'*  Is  it  possible  that  God  has  ad- 
mitted a  creature  to  his  right  hand,  and  suffers  him 
to  possess  all  authority.'*  Would  this  be  for  the  glory 
of  God  the  Fathei?  Such  is  the  union  of  nature, 
design  and  operation,  between  the  Son  and  the  Father, 
that  they,  who  honor  the  Son,  honor  the  Father;  and 
what  exalts  and  glorifies  one,  exalts  and  glorifies  the 
other.  If  this  inseparable  union  of  nature  do  not 
subsist  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  two  distinct 
and  separate  objects  are  holden  forth,  each  of  which 
commands  supreme  love  and  veneration,  and  we  are 


l66        Christ's  humiliation  and  exaltation. 

left  in  the  unavoidable  dilemma  of  paying  religious 
homage  to   two  divinities,  or  to  none. 

Christ  in  his  state  of  exaltation  makes  intercession 
for  believers.  In  that  body  which  was  offered  in  sac- 
rifice, he  appears  before  the  Father  in  their  behalf. 
He  pleads  the  merits  of  his  own  sufferings,  and  the 
Father,  who  remembers  his  covenant  and  loves  his 
Son,  hears  his  requests,  and  his  intei'cession  is  effec- 
tual.* 

*  The  phrase,ybrm  of  God,  [fAOgipn  ©ssi/,)  may  be  explained  b)'  the  subsequent 
\>hrase,  form  of  a  servant,  ijucp<piiv  j'oukov.)  The  v/ordjorm,  in  the  latter  phrase, 
does  not  signify  reality,  or  nature.  For  Christ  was  not  literally  a  servant,  or 
bondman,  to  any  one.  But  he  assumed  the  appearance  of  one  in  this  low  con- 
dition; and  occasionally  officiated  in  this  servile  capacity.  Christ  said  to  his  dis- 
ciples, "I  am  among  you  as  he  that  serveth,"  Luke  '22:27.  If  the  form  of  a 
servant  does  not  literally  signify  a  servant,  the  /bnn  of  God  does  not  literally 
signify  God.  But  the  viorAform,  in  connexion  with  God,  expresses  the  resem- 
blance of  appearance,  on  the  same  ground  as  it  does  when  it  is  used  in  connexion 
•with  servant.  If  it  was  in  human  nature,  Christ  appeared  in  \.\\p  form  of  a  ser- 
vant, it  appears  to  be  a  fair  conclusion,  it  appears  to  be  giving  equal  meaning  to 
the  word  form  in  both  cases,  that  it  was  in  divine  nature  he  appeared  in  the 
form  of  God. 

It  is  evident  from  the  language  of  the  apostle,  that  Christ  was  in  the  form  of 
God,  before  he  was  in  the  form  of  a  servant.  This  proves  his  pre-existence  The 
primitive  form  of  God,  which  he  possessed,  was  undoubtedly  that  glory  which  he 
had  with  the  Father  before  the  world  was;  and  to  be  restored  to  which  he  prayed. 
This  construction  appears  evident,  both  from  fact  and  from  the  language  of  the 
apostle.  It  is  fact  that  when  Christ  was  upon  earth,  he  had  ndt  that  glory,  that 
form  of  God,  which  he  had  before.  This  is  proved  by  his  prayer,  "O  Father, 
glorify  thou  me  with  thine  own  self,  with  the  glory  I  had  with  thee  before  the 
■world -was,"  iohn  17:5.  The  apostle's  language  is  consonant  with  this.  But 
made  himself  of  no  reputation,  (iuurov  (Kiviein,)  These  words  literally  signifj', 
he  divested,  or  emptied  himsef.  But  of  what  did  he  divest  himself?  Not  of  his 
original  nature,  nor  of  his  miraculous  powers  For  he  retained  both  while  he 
was  upon  earth.  He  undoubtedly  divested  himself  of  that,  which  he  formerly 
had;  but  of  which  he  was  then  destitute.  This  was  the  glory,  or  the  form  of 
God,  which  he  had  with  the  Father  before  the  world  was. 

We  do  not  maintain  that  this,  simply  considered,  proves  the  divinity  of  Christ. 
But  let  us  proceed  with  tlie  apostle,  in  his  consequence,  as  he  rises  on  the  subject. 
Thought  it  not  robbery  to  he  equal  -with  God.  It  is  not  necessary  to  quote  all 
the  translations  of  this  contested  text.  Some  of  the  best  critics  of  the  Greek 
language,  have  decided  that  our  cominon  translation  is  correct.  The  principal 
difference  of  opinion  respecting  this  text,  at  the  present  day,  arises  from  the  dif- 
ferent translations  of  the  word  ia-a.  Some  translate  it  equal;  others  translate  it 
as,  or  like.  It  is  agreed  on  both  sides  that  /s-oc,  from  which  itol  is  derived,  signi- 
fies equal.  But  we  are  not  informed  by  what  authority,  or  by  what  misfortune, 
the  derivative  has  lost  more  than  half  its  meaning  in  its  descent  from  its  primitive. 
The  original  word  in  the  New  Testament,  standing  for  like  and  as,  is  not,  as  far 
as  I  have  examined,  /era.  That  it  should  occur  in  this  place,  for  the  first  time  in 
this  sense,  appears  not  a  little  extraordinary.  A  remark  of  the  learned  Poole, 
on  this  word,  is  pertinent  and  forcible.  JK'am  verba  substantiva  cum  adverbio 
scepi  adverbii  significationem  faciunt  nomenclem.  This  signification  of  an  ad- 
verb, in  connexion  with  a  substantive  verb,  he  proves  by  quotations  from  Homer. 
The  connexion  of  the  apostle's  discourse  renders  it  necessary  that  kj-o.  should 
signify  more  than  likeness.  The  expression,  form  of  God  signifies,  at  least,  as 
much  as  divine  likeness.  Admitting  the  position,  in  the  first  place,  that  Christ 
was  like  God,  the  apostle  said  nothing  to  the  purpose,  if  he  only  said  that  Christ 


Christ's  humiliation  and  exaltation.         167 

thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  like  God;  i.  e.  he  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  like 
what  he  was  like.  The  learned  apostle  did  not  waste  his  words  in  such  repeti- 
tion, such  impertinence. 

The  design  of  the  apostle  was  to  inculcate  a  spirit  of  humility  from  the  exam- 
ple of  Christ  But  if  Christ  was  only  like  God,  in  consequence  of  extraordinary 
communications  made  to  him,  his  humiliation  was  no  greater,  to  appearance, 
than  the  humiliation  of  the  prophets  and  apostles;  at  least,  it  was  not  of  a  differ- 
ent kind.  For  they  were  endued  with  extraordinary  gifts,  and  they  officiated 
as  Servants  of  the  people.  But  they  are  not  exalted  as  Christ  was.  The  rea- 
son  is  plain  Being  creatures,  they  were  not  capable  of  so  low  humiliation  as  the 
Son  of  God  was;  neither  were  they  capable  of  such  exceeding  exaltation. 

Christ  not  only  divested  himself  of  divine  glory  while  he  was  upon  earth;  but 
he  humbled  himself  in  his  human  nature.  He  not  only  lived  like  a  servant,  but 
he  died  like  a  malefactor  He  was  obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the 
cross;  a  death  the  most  painful,  and  the  most  ignominious.  This  he  suffered, 
not  by  compulsion,  but  voluntarily.  In  consequence  of  this  low  state  of  humilia- 
tion, God  highly  exalted  him.  He  restored  him  to  that  glory,  which  he  origi- 
inally  had;  and  made  all  intelligent  beings  bow  the  knee  in  religious  veneration 
at  his  name;  and  every  tongue  confess  that  he  is  Lord  of  all.  This  exaltation, 
which  was  the  consequence,  or  reward  of  his  humiliation,  added  nothing  to  his 
real  dignity,  nor  to  the  attributes  of  his  nature.  But  it  displayed  perfections  of 
his  nature,  which  would  not  otherwise  have  been  manifested;  and  it  called  forth 
honors  from  his  creatures,  which  would  not  otherwise  have  been  rendered. 


CHRIST'S  DIVINITY  ARGUED  FROM  THE  PLACE 
HE  HOLDS  IN  OUR  SYSTEM  OF  RELIGION,  AND 
IN  BELIEVERS'  HEARTS. 


In  the  history  of  creation,  God,  without  the  revealed 
distinctions  of  Father,  Son  and  Spirit,  is  the  grand 
agent;  the  grand  object  of  love  and  reverence.  He 
created  the  world  and  tenanted  it  with  animal  and  in- 
telligent life;  and  established  laws  for  their  support 
and  regulation.  This  history  is  concise;  and  the 
period,  from  the  date  of  creation  till  the  apostasy, 
is  undoubtedly  short.  Here  commences  a  new  era; 
here  a  new  and  prominent  personage  rises  to  view. 
A  new  character  is  exhibited  to  repair  the  ruins  of 
the  fall;  and  this  character  runs  through  the  Old;  and 
it  is  the  leading,  the  distinguishing  subject  of  the  New 
Testament. 

Immediately  after  the  history  of  creation,  the  his- 
tory of  redemption  begins.  No  sooner  is  human 
nature  defaced,  than  a  method  begins  to  be  unfolded, 
by  which  it  is  to  be  repaired.  It  was  early  promised 
that  the  Seed  of  the  woman  should  bruise  the  ser- 
pent's head.  A  promise  of  similar  import  was  made 
to  Abraham;  "In  thee  shall  all  families  of  the  earth 
be  blessed."  It  is  evident  that  this  prediction  related 
to  Jesus  Christ,  because  the  apostle  Paul  quoted  it  in 
allusion  to  him,  "The  scripture  foreseeing  that  God 
would  justify  the  heathen  through  faith,  preached 


Christ's  divinity  argued.  169 

before  the  p-ospel  unto  Abraham,  saying,  in  thee  shall 
all  nations  be  blessed."  This  promise  was  repeated  to 
Abraham;  and  it  was  renewed  to  his  son  Isaac.  Jacob, 
when  blessing  his  sons,  spoke  in  the  language  and  in 
the  spirit  o(  prophecy.  When  he  came  to  bless  his 
son  Judah,  he  perceived  that  from  him  the  Messiah 
would  descend;  and  he  pronounced  this  striking 
prophecy,  "The  sceptre  shall  not  depart  from  Judah, 
nor  a  law-oivei-  from  between  his  feet,  until  Shiloh 
come;  and  unto  him  shall  the  gathering  of  the  people 
be."  When  laws  were  given  to  Israel  to  regulate 
their  conduct  in  the  land  of  promise,  a  prediction  con- 
cerning the  Messiah  was  also  communicated  by  Moses. 
"The  Lord  thy  God  will  raise  up  unto  thee  a  Prophet 
from  the  midst  of  thee,  of  thy  brethren,  like  unto  me, 
unto  him  shall  ye  hearken."  When  Balaam  took  up 
his  parable  respecting  Israel,  the  most  prominent  part 
of  his  prediction  related  to  the  Messiah.  He  speaks 
of  him  under  the  similitude  of  a  Star,  that  should  come 
out  of  Jacob,  and  a  Sceptre  that  should  rise  out  of 
Israel. 

As  the  time  of  Christ's  advent  approached,  proph- 
ets appear  to  have  been  endued  with  a  greater  portion 
of  the  spirit  of  prophecy.  They  appear  to  have  had 
clearer  views  of  the  Messiah;  and  they  predicted  his 
coming  with  greater  clearness  and   precision.     The 

Srophet  Isaiah  had  a  clear  and  aiimating  view  of  the 
lessiah.  So  lively  were  his  apprehensions,  that  he 
gave  some  of  his  prophetic  descriptions  in  the  present 
time.  In  view  of  the  nativity  of  Jesus,  he  said,  "The 
Lord  himself  shall  give  you  a  sign,  behold  a  virgin 
shall  conceive  and  bear  a  son,  and  shall  call  his  name 
Immanuel.  Of  the  increase  of  his  government  and 
peace  there  shall  be  no  end,  upon  the  throne  of 
David,  and  upon  his  kingdom  to  order  it,  and  to  estab- 
lish it  with  judgment  and  with  justice  from  henceforth 
even  for  ever.  There  shall  come  forth  a  rod  out  of 
the  stem  of  Jesse,  and  a  branch  shall  grow  out  of  his 
roots.  Unto  us  a  Child  is  born,  unto  us  a  Son  is  given; 
22 


170  CHRISTJ^'S    DIVINITY    ARGUED. 

and  the  government  shall  be  upon  his  shoulder.  Be- 
hold my  Servant,  whom  I  uphold,  mine  elect,  in  whom 
mj  soul  delighteth;  I  have  put  my  Spirit  upon  him; 
he  shall  bring  forth  judgment  to  the  Gentiles.  Thus 
saith  the  Lord  God,  behold  1  lay  in  Zion  for  a  founda- 
tion, a  stone,  a  tried  stone,  a  precious  corner  stone,  a 
sure  foundation."  The  same  prophet  proceeds  to  de- 
scribe his  state  of  humiliation.  "He  hath  no  form  nor 
comeliness;  and  when  we  shall  see  him,  there  is  no 
beauty  that  we  should  desire  him.  He  is  despised 
and  rejected  of  men;  a  man  of  sorrows  and  acquainted 
with  grief;  and  we  hid,  as  it  were,  our  faces  from  him; 
he  was  despised  and  we  esteerof^d  him  not.  He  was 
wounded  for  our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised  for  our 
iniquities,  &c. — He  shall  see  of  the  travail  of  his  soul 
and  shall  be  satisfied;  by  his  knowledge  shall  my 
righteous  Servant  justify  many;  for  he  shall  bear  their 
iniquities." 

Other  prophets  had  a  view  of  an  approaching 
Savior;  and  they  foretold  his  coming.  They  even 
pointed  out  the  time  and  place  of  his  nativity.  "When 
Israel  was  a  child,  then  I  loved  him,  and  called  my 
Son  out  of  Egypt.  Thou  Bethlehem  Ephratah, 
though  thou  be  little  among  the  thousands  of  Judah, 
yet  out  of  thee  shall  he  come  forth  unto  me,  that  is  to 
be  Ruler  in  Israel.  Rejoice  greatly,  O  daughter  of 
Zion;  shout  O  daughter  of  Jerusalem;  behold  thy 
King  coraeth  unto  thee;  he  is  just,  and  having  salvation, 
lowly  and  riding  upon  an  ass;  and  a  colt,  the  foal  of 
an  ass.  One  shall  say  unto  him,  what  are  these  wounds 
in  thy  hands?  Then  shall  he  answer,  those  with 
which  I  was  wounded  in  the  house  of  my  friends. 
They  weighed  for  my  price  thirty'  pieces  of  silver. 
Awake,  O  sword;  smite  the  Shepherd  and  the  sheep 
shall  be  scattered.  They  pierced  my  hands  and  my 
feet.  They  gave  me  also  gall  for  my  meat,  and  in  my 
thirst  they  gave  me  vinegar  to  drink.  They  part  my 
garments  among  them,  and  cast  lots  upon  my  vesture. 
He  was  numbered  with  transgressors.     Thou  wilt  not 


Christ's  divinity  argued.  171 

leave  my  soul  in  hell,  neither  wilt  thou  suffer  thine 
Holy  One  to  see  corruption.  They  shall  look  on  me 
whom  they  have  pierced." 

These  are  some  of  the  prophecies  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, which  relate  to  the  Messiah.  So  important 
and  conspicuous  a  place  did  they  hold  in  the  Jewish 
scriptures  that  Christ  was  the  grand  object  of  the 
desires  and  expectations  of  the  nation  of  the  Jews.  It 
is  evident  that  these  predictions  related  to  the  Mes- 
siah, because  they  were  visibly  fulfilled  in  him. 

Other  characters  and  other  events,  are  also  pre- 
dicted in  the  Old  Testament.  Cyrus  was  foretold; 
he  was  called  by  name.  He  was  appointed  to  an 
important  place;  to  do  important  business;  to  subdue 
nations;  to  loose  the  loins  of  kings.  But  he  was  only 
an  instrument  in  the  hand  of  God,  by  whom  he  did  his 
pleasure  on  Babylon.  He  is  only  glanced  at  in  pro- 
phecy. His  deeds  were  of  limited  consequence;  nor 
were  they  followed  by  a  lasting  and  important  train 
of  events.  John  the  Baptist  was  foretold.  But  his 
character  becomes  interesting  and  distinguishing,  prin- 
cipally because  he  was  the  forerunner  of  him,  that 
should  come.  Like  the  harbinger  of  the  morning,  he 
shone  with  considerable  distinction  till  the  Sun  of 
righteousness  arose;  then  his  lustre  was  lost  in  the 
splendor  of  the  great  Light  of  the  world.  But  Christ 
was  the  grand  object  of  prophecy,  from  the  apostasy 
till  his  appearance  in  the  world.  Patriarchs  and 
prophets,  by  an  eye  of  faith,  saw  his  day  and  were 
glad.  Balaam,  a  prophet  of  the  Gentiles,  saw  the 
Star  of  Jacob  shining  at  a  distance;  and  under  the 
guidance  of  God's  Spirit  he  blessed  Israel  with  a  prom- 
ise of  a  Savior.  The  believing  Jews  understood  those 
prophecies,  which  particularized  the  Messiah,  pur- 
porting a  divine  Redeemer.  Those  appearances  of 
divinity,  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament,  were  un- 
doubtedly understood  to  be  those  of  the  Son  of  God. 
Moses,  by  faith,  had  knowledge  of  Christ;  for  he 
"esteemed  the  reproach  of  Christ  greater  riches  than 


172  Christ's  divinity  argued. 

the  treasures  of  Egypt."  God  sent  his  Ansjel  before 
Israel  in  the  wilderness.  He  informed  them  that  his 
name  was  in  him.  He  cautioned  them  not  to  provoke 
him.  They  undoubtedly  understood  that  this  Angel 
was  Christ.  The  apostle  Paul  says,  some  of  them 
tempted  Christy  and  were  destroyed  of  serpents.  All 
other  prophecies  in  the  Old  Testament,  are  of  small 
consideration,  excepting  in  their  connexion  with  the 
prophecies  respecting  the  Messiah;  or  as  they  have  a 
bearing  upon  his  coming  into  the  world.  The  pro- 
phecies respecting  the  rise  and  fall  of  nations  and 
empires  are  of  small  importance,  excepting  in  their 
bearing  upon  the  kingdom  of  the  Redeemer.  The 
prophecies  respecting  the  nation  of  the  Jews,  derive 
almost  all  their  importance  from  this  consideration, 
they  were  the  people,  to  whom  the  Messiah  was 
revealed;  and  from  whom  he  was  to  descend. 

The  most  important  events  recorded  in  the  Old 
Testament,  relate,  in  some  way,  to  the  Messiah.  The 
preservation  of  Noah  and  his  family,  from  the  general 
destruction  by  the  deluge,  represents,  in  a  lively  man- 
ner, the  preservation  of  the  church  by  Christ,  from 
the  destruction  of  the  corrupt  mass  of  the  world. 
Abraham  was  called  that  he  might  receive  a  revela- 
tion of  an  approaching  Savior.  Isaac  was  spared, 
when  his  father  was  just  ready  to  sacrifice  him  upon 
the  altar,  because,  from  him  the  desire  of  nations  was 
to  descend.  Jacob  and  his  family  were  preserved 
during  a  long  famine,  because  from  his  lineage  a 
Savior  was  to  arise.  They  were  selected  to  be  the 
peculiar  depository  of  divine  revelation,  and  from 
whom  a  Savior  was  to  proceed.  For  this  purpose 
they  were  preserved,  in  a  great  measure,  distinct 
from  other  people.  For  the  same  purpose  they  were 
preserved  in  Egypt;  delivered  from  bondage;  miracu- 
lously preserved  in  their  passage  through  the  Red 
Sea;  supported  in  the  wilderness;  led  to  Canaan,  and 
carried  through  all  their  vicissitudes,  till  the  grand 
Object  of  their  expectations  appeared.     The  history 


Christ's  divinity  ARGUEit.  173 

• 
of  the  Old  Testament  would  lose  much  of  its  import- 
ance and  interest,  were  it  not  for   its  distinguishing 
character,  the  Messiah. 

Sacrifices  and  oflferings  were  early  instituted  by 
divine  authority.  Rites  and  ceremonies  were  estab- 
lished. Types  and  symbols  denoted  that  some  great 
personage  would  appear.  Of  what  importance  was 
the  blood  of  beasts;  of  what  importance  was  it  to  burn 
their  bodies  in  sacrifice  on  the  altar?  Of  what  im- 
portance were  all  the  rites  and  ceremonies,  which 
were  instituted?  The  blood  of  beasts  had  not  virtue 
in  itself  to  take  away  sin.  But  it  represented  the 
blood  of  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  was  to  make  expia- 
tion for  the  sins  of  the  world.  It  became  an  expiation 
for  sin  only^  as  it  was  appointed  to  represent  the  pre^ 
cious  blood  of  Jesus,  which  was  oflered  as  an  expiatory 
sacrifice.  The  Jewish  rites  and  ceremonies  were 
important  only^  as  they  were  appointed  to  prefigure 
some  trait  in  his  character,  some  circumstance  in  his 
life,  or  some  feature  in  his  offices.  Priests  were  ap- 
pointed by  divine  authority,  to  make  intercession  for 
the  people;  and  to  oflfer  sacrifice  upon  the  altar. 
Their  character  and  office  became  important  only,  as 
they  were  appointed  emblems  of  the  character  and 
office  of  the  Savior.  The  grand  scope  of  the  Old 
Testament  history,  of  the  prophecies,  of  the  promises, 
of  the  sacrifices,  of  the  types  and  shadows,  was  the 
Messiah.  They  derive  their  importance  from  their 
concentration  in  him.  Blot  this  grand  personage  from 
the  Old  Testament,  and  its  history  becomes  insipid; 
its  promises  become  fallacious;  its  sacrifices  lose  all 
their  efficacy;  its  types  and  shadows  are  shadows  still; 
and  the  Jewish  economy  was  but  a  prototype  of  the 
present,  gross  idolatries  of  the  eastern  nations. 

The  New  Testament  commences  with  a  history  of 
the  same  illustrious  character.  Preparations  are  fully 
made.  The  predicted  time  arrives.  Representations 
cease;  and  the  glorious  reality,  the  Desire  of  all  nations, 
appears.     The  first  books  of  the  New    Testament 


174  Christ's  divinity  argued. 

give  a  history  of  the  birth,  life,  and  death  of  Jesus 
Christ.  In  these  books  he  inculcates,  upon  his  own 
authority,  a  system  of  the  most  sublime  and  interest- 
ing truths,  demands  assent;  and  by  the  same  authority 
he  lays  down  a  system  of  rules  for  the  regulation  of 
human  life.  He  exhibits  himself  in  union  with  the 
Father;  doing  the  same  works,  which  the  Father  did; 
and  claiming  the  same  honors.  He  exhibits  himself 
Savior  of  the  world;  requires  faith  in  his  name;  requires 
supreme  love;  requires  the  relinquishment  of  every 
thing  for  his  sake.  Upon  his  own  authority,  and  by 
virtue  of  his  own  merits,  he  promises  forgiveness  of 
sin,  upon  conditions,  which  he  proposes.  He  holds  all 
authority  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  He  sends  the 
Holy  Spirit  into  the  human  heart,  to  prepare  a  people 
for  himself.  He  magnifies  the  divine  law,  and  makes 
it  honorable,  by  making  a  propitiation  for  sin.  He  is 
the  foundation  of  the  church;  and  his  word  secures  it 
against  every  attack.  He  will  raise  the  dead;  judge 
the   world,  and  distribute  retribution. 

To  confirm  these  truths  he  exhibited  a  holy  life; 
and  in  his  own  name  he  performed  works,  which 
almighty  power  alone  could  perform.  To  confirm 
the  faith  of  his  followers,  as  well  as  to  make  expiation 
for  sin,  he  suffered  what  he  had  predicted.  He  com- 
missioned apostles  to  spread  and  inculcate  the  religion, 
which  he  had  taught.  He  vested  them  with  authori- 
ty to  work  miracles  in  his  name.  In  their  writings 
they  illustrated  and  enforced  his  doctrines.  The 
most  prominent  feature  of  their  epistles  was  Jesus 
Christ  crucified;  and  the  remission  of  sin  through  faith 
in  his  name.  If  they  gloried,  they  gloried  in  Christ. 
They  gloried  in  tribulation  for  his  sake.  They  rejoic- 
ed that  they  were  accounted  worthy  to  suffer  for 
Jesus  Christ. 

The  revelation  which  Jesus  Christ  made  to  St.  John, 
completes  the  sacred  Scriptures;  and  it  completes  the 
history  of  the  world.  The  leading  subject  of  this 
book  is  Christ  and  his  church.     This  subject  runs 


Christ's  divinity  argued.  175 

through  the  whole  New  Testament.     It  is  its  life  and 
its  spirit. 

Who  is  this  personage  that  appears  so  often  in  the 
Old,  and  breathes  in  almost  every  line  of  the  New 
Testament?  Is  it  a  man,  a  mere  man?  Was  it  for  a 
man,  that  a  series  of  prophets  during  four  thousand 
years  predicted  his  coming,  and  longed  to  see  his  day? 
Was  it  in  allusion  to  a  man,  that  during  this  long  period, 
beasts  without  number  were  consumed  upon  the  altar? 
Was  it  to  represent  a  man,  that,  during  this  long  period, 
types  and  shadows  were  used?  Or  was  it  for  a  super- 
angelic  creature,  or  for  a  temporary,  limited  depend- 
ent son,  that  the  vast  preparations  of  four  thousand 
years  were  made?  Was  it  to  introduce  either  of  these 
into  the  world,  that  the  wheels  of  providence  rolled 
on  undisturbed  during  this  vast  length  of  time?  The 
preparation  would  then  be  vastly  disproportionate  to 
the  dignity  of  the  personage.  The  representation 
would  far  exceed  the  reality.  Infinite  wisdom  decides 
against  this  disproportion.  Would  the  divine  Being 
employ  a  second  volume  to  give  the  character,  and 
record  the  doctrines  and  precepts  of  any  of  his  most 
exalted  creatures?  Would  he  give  to  the  world  a 
religion  formed  by  created  wisdom? 

Extraordinary  characters  are  left  upon  sacred 
record,  which  represent  Jesus  Christ.  So  illustrious 
was  Abraham,  that  he  was  called  the  father  of  many 
nations;  the  father  of  believers.  But  Christ  was  King 
of  kings  and  Lord  of  all  In  him  all  nations  of  the 
earth  were  blessed.  He  is  the  Head  of  the  church. 
His  union  with  believers  is  more  intimate,  supporting 
and  endearing  than  was  Abraham's.  Moses  was  ap- 
pointed to  be  as  God  unto  Pharaoh.  He  delivered  a 
nation  from  bondage.  He  wrought  miracles.  He 
covered  Egypt  with  plagues.  He  was  admitted  to 
the  mount  where  God  was;  and  when  he  returned, 
the  skin  of  his  face  shone.  He  is  a  lively  representa- 
tion of  the  Messiah.  But  the  Messiah  suffers  no  dim- 
inution of  character  by  contrast  with  this  illustrious 


176  Christ's  divinity  argued. 

man.  Christ  was  with  God  not  a  few  days  only;  but 
from  the  beginning  he  was  with  God.  He  came  not  for 
the  deliverance  of  one  nation  only;  but  for  the  dehv- 
erance  of  all  the  nations  of  the  earth,  not  from  tem- 
poral calamities,  but  from  spiritual  bondage.  When 
he  wrought  miracles,  he  wrought  them  not  to  plague 
the  land;  but  to  do  good  to  the  people;  to  confirm  his 
authority;  to  display  the  mighty  power  of  God;  and 
he  wrought  them  in  his  own  name  and  by  his  own 
might.  At  the  time  of  his  transfiguration,  splendor 
was  not  confined  to  his  face;  nor  was  his  brightness 
reflected  by  beholding  the  glories  of  the  Deity.  But 
his  divinity,  as  if  impatient  of  confinement  in  a  human 
body,  burst  through  the  vail,  and  covered  his  whole 
body  with  light.  Not  like  Moses  did  he  conceal  his 
glories  by  wrapping  them  in  a  vail  lest  people  should 
pay  undue  respect.  But  he  suflfered  his  disciples  to 
gaze,  admire,  and  pay  him  homage.  Moses  never 
communicated  power  to  others  to  work  miracles;  for 
his  power  was  from  God,  and  he  could  not  transfer  it. 
But  Christ  commissioned  apostles  to  work  miracles  in 
his  name;  and  he  commissioned  them  upon  his  own 
authority.  When  Moses  died,  the  Lord  buried  him, 
and  suffered  no  man  to  know  the  place  of  his  sepulchre, 
lest  people  should  go  to  his  grave  and  pay  divine  hon- 
ors to  that  illustrious  man.  But  such  precaution  was 
not  used  at  the  interment  of  the  body  of  Jesus.  VV^hat 
is  the  conclusion.'^  There  was  no  danger  that  people 
would  pay  too  high  honors  to  the  Savior. 

Other  patriarchs  and  prophets  represented  Jesus 
Christ.  But  they  represented  only  some  individual 
trait  in  his  character.  They  were  but  obscure  rep- 
resentations. If  such  and  so  many  illustrious  charac- 
ters were  employed  to  prefigure  the  Messiah,  very 
great  must  he  be,  who  was  thus  represented.  As 
God  made  a  visible  distinction  between  those  miracles, 
which  were  wrought  by  his  servant  upon  Egypt,  and 
those,  which  the  magicians  did  by  their  enchantments, 
"^o  he   has  made   a  visible   distinction    between    the 


Christ's  divinity  argued.  177 

Messiah  and  all  those  illustrious  characters,  which 
prefigured  him. 

Christ  suffers  no  diminution  of  character  in  contrast 
with  the  highest  orders  of  created  intelligences,  of 
which  we  have  knowledge.  Angels  are  his  minister- 
ing servants.  At  his  birth  an  angel  was  sent  to  an- 
nounce the  joyful  event;  and  a  multitude  of  the  angelic 
host  sang  praise  to  God  in  the  highest,  on  that  impor- 
tant occasion.  Angels  afforded  Christ  their  minister- 
ing aid  while  he  suffered  the  hardships  of  life;  and 
especially  while  he  suffered  agony  in  the  garden. 
They  will  wait  upon  him  in  the  clouds  of  heaven  at 
the  last  day.  When  he  came  into  the  world,  divine 
authority  required  that  all  the  angels  of  God  should 
worship  him.  To  none  of  the  angels  did  God  ever 
say,  sit  thou  at  my  right  hand.  But  to  the  Son  he 
said,  "Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever."  It  is  evident 
that  Christ  is  a  being  of  more  exalted  nature  and 
character  than  the  angels.  To  whom  then  shall  he 
be  likened;  or  with  whom  shall  he  be  compared? 

He  is  far  above  all  creatures.  He  is  their  Creator. 
By  him  all  things  consist.  He  is  the  Author,  he  is 
the  Substance  of  our  religion.  He  is  the  believer's 
hope. 

The  representations,  which  the  sacred  Scriptures 
give  of  Jesus  Christ  are  calculated  to  convince  man- 
kind that  he  is  a  divine  character.  He  is  the  leading 
subject;  he  is  the  most  prominent  character  of  our 
system  of  religion.  The  Scriptures  attribute  to  him 
the  qualities,  the  works,  the  names,  the  honors  which 
they  give  to  God.  When  people  called  him  divine; 
when  they  worshipped  him  as  if  he  were  divine,  he 
never  charged  them  with  error.  He  indulged,  he 
encouraged  the  deception,  if  deception  it  was.  Moses 
used  caution  to  prevent  a  superstitious  people  from 
venerating  him  as  a  Deity.  John  the  baptist,  to  pre- 
vent people  from  mistaking  himself  for  him  that 
should  come,  declared  that  he  was  not  the  Christ; 
that  he  was  not  worthy  to  unloose  the  latchet  of  his 
23 


178  Christ's  divinity  argued. 

shoes.  When  the  apostles,  by  signs  and  wonders 
excited  the  admiration  of  the  people  at  Lystra;  and 
they  reputed  them  as  gods,  and  would  have  offered 
sacrifice  to  them,  they  corrected  the  error,  and  forbade 
the  idolatry.  When  the  angel,  whom  Christ  sent  to 
testily  unto  the  churches,  had  finished  the  work  of 
his  mission  with  John,  he  fell  down  to  worship  the 
angel;  but  the  angel  said,  "See  thou  do  it  not;  for  I 
am  thy  fellow  servant. — Worship  God."  When  the 
patriarchs,  the  prophets,  the  apostles,  and  the  angel, 
excited  the  veneration  of  people,  they  were  cautious 
to  disclaim  all  pretensions  to  divine  honors.  They 
suffered  not  their  idolatry.  Christ  excited  the  vener- 
ation of  men  more  than  they.  Through  belief  of  his 
divinity  they  rendered  him  divine  honors.  Had  he 
been  only  a  created  being;  and  had  he  been  a  holy 
being;  and  had  he  been  jealous  for  the  honor  of  God's 
name,  like  them  he  would  have  refused  their  worship; 
he  would  have  forbidden  their  impiety.  But  when 
worship  was  offered  him  he  received  it  with  compla- 
cency. 

If  the  Scriptures  are  true,  there  appears  to  be 
decisive  evidence  that  Christ  is  divine;  and  they  are 
calculated  to  convince  mankind  of  this  truth.  They 
ascribe  as  much  excellence,  and  as  much  honor  to 
Christ  as  they  ascribe  to  the  Father.  The  Christian 
church  has,  from  its  first  establishment,  ascribed 
divinity  and  divine  honors  to  the  Son  of  God.  If  some, 
with  the  Scriptures  in  their  hands,  have  attempted  to 
rob  Christ  of  divine  glory;  others,  with  the  same 
Scriptures,  have  attempted  to  do  the  same  to  God  the 
Father.  These  are  exceptions,  which  prove  the 
darkness  of  the  understanding  and  the  obduracy  of 
the  human  heart. 

In  every  age  of  the  world,  people  have  manifested 
a  strong  propensity  to  idolatry.  They  were  not  less 
prone  to  this  impiety  when  Christ  was  upon  earth, 
and  when  his  system  of  religion  was  committed  to 
writing.     Would  God  set  his  seal  to  a  system  of  relig- 


Christ's  divinity  argued.  179 

ion,  which  attributed  divine  nature  and  divine  prerog- 
atives to  one  of  his  creatures?  Would  he  suffer  his 
church  to  be  thus  imposed  on  from  the  beginning  of 
the  world  to  the  present  day,  and  to  the  end  of  time; 
and  by  his  word  encourage  the  error?  If  the  Scrip- 
tures may  be  credited;  if  Christ  was  sincere  and  spoke 
the  truth,  there  appears  to  be  as  high  evidence,  as 
language  can  afford,  that  Christ  is  divine. 


CHRIST  THE  AUTHOR  OF  SALVATION. 


"There  is  none  other  name  under  heaven  given  among 
men,  whereby  we  must  be  saved,"  Acts  4:12.  The 
sacred  scriptures  abundantly  testify  that  human  nature, 
by  the  apostasy,  lost  its  purity  and  dignity;  lost  divine 
approbation;  contracted  guilt,  and  incurred  the  dis- 
pleasure of  heaven.  The  sacred  scriptures  testify 
that  from  this  sinful,  unhappy  condition,  it  could  not, 
by  its  own  power  and  wisdom,  extricate  itself.  With- 
out foreign  aid  it  must  for  ever  remain  in  a  state  of 
sin  and  wretchedness.  The  same  sacred  scriptures 
reveal  a  Savior;  a  personage,  who  came  to  seek  and 
save  that  which  was  lost.  He  was  early  promised  to 
the  world;  and  he  was  revealed  by  the  name  Savior. 
Salvation  was  promised  through  him.  God,  by  his 
prophet  declared,  saying,  "Israel  shall  be  saved  in  the 
Lord,  with  an  everlasting  salvation^  By  the  same 
prophet  he  foretold  the  blessing  of  the  Messiah  to 
the  world.  "I  will  give  thee  for  a  light  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, that  thou  mayest  be  my  salvation  unto  the  end 
of  the  earth.  My  salvation  is  gone  forth,  the  isles 
shall  wait  upon  me,  and  on  mine  arm  shall  they  trust. 
In  those  days  shall  Judah  be  saved,  and  Jerusalem 
shall  dwell  safely;  and  this  is  the  name  wherewith  he 
shall  be  called.  The  liord,  our  Righteousness." 

A  short  time  before  Christ  was  born,  an  angel 
appeared  unto  Joseph,  and  directed  him  to  call  the 
child,  which  was  to  be  born  of  Mary,  Jesus.  This 
name  was  given  him   on   account  of  its  appropriate 


CHRIST    THE  AUTHOR    OF   SALVATION.  Uil 

Signification.  He  was  to  be  a  Savior;  and  the  name 
Jesus,  has  that  import.  Christ  said  of  himself,  "The 
Son  of  man  is  come  to  save  that  wliich  was  lost." 
Zacharias,  under  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
said,  "Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Israel;  for  he  hath 
visited  and  redeemed  his  people;  and  hath  raised  up 
an  horn  of  salvation  for  us."  At  the  birth  of  Christ 
an  angel  declared  the  joyful  event,  saying,  "Unto  you 
is  born  this  day,  in  the  city  of  David,  a  Savior,  which 
is  Christ  the  Lord."  The  devout  Simeon  took  the 
child  Jesus  in  his  arms.  Under  the  influence  of  God's 
Spirit,  and  in  rapture  with  the  prospect  of  Christ's 
blessings,  he  said,  "Lord,  now  lettest  thou  thy  servant 
depart  in  peace,  according  to  thy  word;  for  mine  eyes 
have  seen  thy  salvation.''''  Christ,  speaking  of  the 
love  of  God  said,  "God  sent  not  his  Son  into  the  world 
to  condemn  the  world,  but  that  the  world  through 
him  might  be  saved.''''  Christ  repeatedly  conveyed 
the  idea  that  he  was  the  Savior  of  the  world;  and  the 
universal  tenor  of  his  works  confirmed  his  word. 

The  apostles  abundantly  inculcated  the  sentiment 
that  Christ  is  the  Savior  of  the  world.  "Through 
this  man  is  preached  unto  you  the  forgiveness  of 
sins.  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou 
shalt  be  saved.  Christ  Jesus  came  into  the  world  to 
save  sinners.  He  is  also  able  to  save  them  to  the  utter- 
most, that  come  unto  God  by  him.  The  Father 
hath  sent  the  Son  to  be  the  Savior  of  the  world."  It 
is  a  prominent  doctrirte  of  the  New  Testament  that 
Christ  is  the  Savior  of  the  world. 

Christ  saves  sinners  from  their  sins.  When  he 
surveyed  mankind  after  the  apostasy,  and  by  his  all- 
seeing  eye  looked  through  every  generation  to  the 
close  of  time,  he  perceived  that  all  were  corrupt; 
that  all  had  gone  out  of  the  way;  that  there  was  none 
that  did  good,  no  not  one.  He  perceived  that  they 
might  be  saved  from  their  sins;  and  he  undertook  the 
work.  He  had  authority  to  send  the  Holy  Spirit  into 
tlie   world  to  repair  human   nature;  to  support  and 


182  CHRIST    THE    AUTHOR    GF    SALVATION. 

comfort  people  in  the  way  of  obedience.  This  step 
was  necessary,  because,  according  to  divine  constitu- 
tion, no  unclean  thing  was  suffered  to  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  heaven.  Christ  had  authority  to  adopt 
and  prosecute  this  method;  for  all  authority  in  heaven 
and  on  earth  was  given  to  him.  When  he  saw  his 
disciples  sorrowful  because  he  was  about  to  leave  the 
Avorld,  he  promised  to  send  them  the  Comforter,  who 
would  reprove  the  world  of  sin,  and  of  righteousness, 
and  of  judgment;  and  who  would  guide  them  into  all 
truth,  and  teach  them  all  things.  The  scriptures 
attribute  a  change  of  heart,  or  the  washing  of  regen- 
eration to  the  Holy  Spirit.  As  Christ  sends  the  Holy 
Spirit  into  the  world  to  do  this  office,  the  same  work, 
the  work  of  sanctification  is  attributed  to  him.  Paul, 
to  the  Corinthians,  makes  his  salutation  to  those  who 
are  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus.  He  adds,  "ye  are 
sanctified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  By  sancti- 
fying sinners  by  his  Spirit,  Christ  saves  sinners  from 
their  sins.  Those,  who  are  born  of  his  Spirit  are 
saved  from  the  dominion  of  sin.  They  cease  to  relish 
it.  They  cease  to  practise  it  habitually.  They  are 
saved  from  the  bondage  of  the  great  adversary.  If 
sanctification  be  not  complete  in  this  life;  if  ihey,  at 
times  fall  into  transgression,  yet  they  experience  a 
great  deliverance  from  sin  and  from  the  power  of  the 
great  adversary;  and  they  are  brought  into  the  liberty 
of  the  sons  of  God. 

Christ  saves  the  human  body  from  the  dominion 
of  death.  In  consequence  of  sin,  a  sentence  of  mor- 
tality was  pronounced  upon  the  human  race.  This 
sentence,  with  a  few  individual  exceptions,  and  with 
the  exception  of  those,  who  will  be  living  on  the  earth 
at  the  day  of  the  resurrection,  has  been,  and  will  be 
carried  into  execution.  The  human  family  generally 
have  been  and  will  be  under  the  empire  of  death. 
Christ  has  given  assurance  that  death  will,  one  day, 
be  swallowed  up  in  victory;  that  he  will  reanimate 
and  reorganize  the  lifeless  bodies  of  the  human  race, 
and  render  them  immortal. 


CHRIST    THE    AUTHOR    OF    SALVATION.  J  83 

Clirlst  not  only  saves  sinners  from  sin;  their  bodies 
from  a  continuation  of  death;  but  he  saves  their  souls 
from  destruction.  He  has  obtained  reprieve  for  the 
human  race.  He  has  magnified  the  divine  law  and 
made  it  honorable.  He  has  proposed  conditions, 
favorable  conditions  to  the  guilty  race  of  man,  on 
which  he  will  forgive  their  sins,  and  present  them  to 
the  Father  justified  in  his  sight.  Had  not  Christ  inter- 
posed in  behalf  of  sinners;  became  a  curse  for  them, 
they  must  have  suffered  the  penalty  of  the  law,  and 
be  for  ever  banished  from  the  enjoyment  of  God,  and 
suffer  his  indignation  for  ever.  But  Christ  has  pre- 
pared the  way  for  the  return  of  sinners  to  holiness 
and  happiness.  He  offers  gracious  conditions  on  which 
he  will  restore  them;  and  he  affords  aid  to  assist  them 
to  fulfil  those  conditions.  He  has  given  assurance 
that  he  will  save  from  the  second  death  all  those, 
who  repent  of  sin  and  put  their  trust  in  him. 

Christ  saves  sinners  by  his  own  sacrifice.  He  made 
his  soul  an  offering  for  sin.  By  this  sacrifice  he  sup- 
ported the  honor  of  God's  law;  and  the  rights  of  God's 
throne  while  he  procured  remission  of  sin  for  penitent 
sinners. 

After  Jesus  Christ  had  paid  a  ransom  for  sinners, 
he  was  in  a  capacity  to  make  intercession  with  the 
Father  for  those,  who  believed  on  his  name.  The 
Sacred  Scriptures  bear  testimony  that  he  is  a  Media- 
tor; makes  intercession  for  believers;  and  that  his 
intercession  will  be  prevalent.  "There  is  one  God 
and  one  Mediator  between  God  and  men,  the  man 
Christ  Jesus.  He  is  the  Mediator  of  a  better  cove- 
nant. He  made  intercession  for  the  transgressors. 
Who  also  maketh  intercession  for  us.  We  have  an 
Advocate  with  the  Father,  Jesus  Christ  the  rii>ht- 
eous."  God  by  covenant  has  assured  his  Son  that  he 
shall  see  of  the  travail  of  his  soul  and  be  satisfied.  A 
portion  of  the  human  race  will  listen  to  the  calls  of 
the  Gospel;  will  yield  to  the  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  and  embrace  the  Savioi-.     For  this  portion  of 


184  CHRIST    THE    AUTHOR    OF    SALVATION- 

the  human  race,  Christ  will  intercede.  The  Father 
dehghteth  in  his  Son  and  he  dehghteth  to  grant  his 
requests.  None  that  cometh  to  the  Father  by  him 
shall  in  any  wise  be  cast  out. 

The  near  relationship,  which  subsists  between 
Christ  and  his  subjects,  argues  that  he  will  save  them. 
He  is  the  Ruler  of  his  people.  He  is  frequently 
styled,  in  the  Scriptures,  Governor  and  King.  God, 
by  the  Psalmist,  saith,  "I  have  set  my  King  upon  my 
holy  hill  of  Zion."  The  prophet  Zechariah,  in  view 
of  the  approach  of  the  Messiah,  breaks  out  in  this 
elevated  strain,  "Rejoice  greatly,  O  daughter  of  Zion; 
shout  O  daughter  of  Jerusalem,  thy  King  cometh 
unto  thee,  he  is  just  and  having  salvation.''''  Nathanael, 
that  Israelite,  in  whom  was  no  guile,  addressed  Christ 
in  the  most  decisive  language;  "Thou  art  the  Son  of 
God;  thou  art  the  King  of  Israel."  It  was  prophesied 
of  the  Messiah,  that  the  government  should  be  upon 
his  shoulder.  As  Christ  is  King  of  his  people,  he  will 
save  them  from  all  their  enemies.  It  is  the  charac- 
teristic of  a  good  ruler,  as  he  has  ability,  to  save  his 
subjects  from  their  foes;  to  deliver  them  from  evils, 
and  secure  them  from  danger.  Christ  is  a  wise, 
powerful,  and  good  Ruler.  He  will  therefore  save 
his  own  peculiar  people.  If  he  suffers  them,  at  times, 
to  be  chastised  by  their  enemies;  he  suffers  it  no  far- 
ther than  it  serves  as  salutary  discipline.  He  will 
hnally  lead  them  to  victory  and  to  salvation. 

Christ  styles  himself  a  shepherd,  "the  good  Shep- 
herd." As  it  is  the  duty  of  a  shepherd  to  feed  his 
sheep  and  secure  them  from  beasts  of  prey;  so  Christ 
supports  his  flock;  secures  them  from  their  enemies, 
and  finally  saves  them.  Christ  claims  the  relationship 
of  bridegroom  to  his  church.  This  figurative  appel- 
lation conveys  the  idea  of  the  most  intimate  union,  and 
of  the  most  endearing  care  and  affection.  A  mother 
may  forget  her  tender  offspring,  but  Christ  declares 
that  he  will  not  forget  his  church.  Arguments  need 
not  be  multiplied  to  prove  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the 


CHRIST    THE    AUTHOR    OF    SALVATION.  185 

Author  of  salvation.  The  Sacred  Scriptures  bear 
testimony  to  the  truth  of  this  doctrine;  and  if  they  be 
true,  the  doctrine  of  salvation  by  Christ  is  also  true. 
Upon  this  ground  mankind  are,  with  propriety,  re- 
quired to  put  their  trust  in  him;  to  apply  to  him  for 
every  aid,  and  commit  their  highest  concerns  to  his 
hands. 

The  inference  then  is  plain  that  Christ  is  not  mere- 
ly a  man.  The  Scriptures  expressly  declare,  "Cursed 
be  the  man  that  trusteth  in  man  and  maketh  flesh 
his  arm."  But,  -'Blessed  is  the  man  (hat  trusteth  in 
the  Lord,  and  whose  hope  the  Lord  is."  It  is  not 
reasonable  that  a  mere  man  could  work  out  such  a 
complete  righteousness,  that  offers  of  pardon  and  sal- 
vation could  be  consistently  made  to  the  human  race. 
No  man  liveth,  or  ever  lived,  and  sinned  not.  Conse- 
quently no  man  can  save  himself.  He  can  make  no 
expiation  for  his  own  sins,  excepting  by  suffering  the 
threatened  penalty.  If  he  cannot  save  himself,  it  is 
presumable  that  he  cannot  save  others.  If  a  man 
were  appointed  to  be  the  author  of  salvation,  by 
making  satisfaction  for  sin,  by  officiating  as  mediator 
between  God  and  the  human  race,  and  forgiving  their 
offences;  it  would  greatly  diminish  the  dignity  of  the 
divine  character;  it  would  greatly  diminish  the  evil  of 
sin;  it  would  greatly  diminish  the  price  and  the  value 
of  salvation;  it  would  contract  every  part  of  the  work 
of  redemption. 

Similar  objections  lie  against  the  hypothesis  that  a 
superangelic  creature  was  the  author  of  salvation. 
Whoever  the  Savior  is,  whatever  his  nature  and  his 
character  are,  the  Sacred  Scriptures  attribute  to  him 
the  highest  excellences;  the  highest  honors;  tiie 
highest  authority;  and  require  the  highest  love  to  be 
exercised  toward  him.  God  has  given  us  the  Sacred 
Scriptures  to  be  the  object  of  our  faith  and  the  rule 
of  our  practice.  Can  it  be  supposed  that  God,  who  is 
jealous  for  the  honor  of  his  name;  who  is  jealous  for 
the  rights  of  his  throne,  would  appoint  a  creature,  (of 
24 


* 
186  CHRIST    THE    AUTHOR    OF    SALVATION. 

however  exalted  nature,)  to  take  his  place;  to  receive 
his  authority;  to  do  his  works;  to  receive  the  glory 
which  is  due  only  to  himself  and  be  the  object  of  the 
highest  love  of  the  human  race?  Will  God  suffer  a 
creature  to  be  on  equality  with  himself  in  the  work  of 
redemption,  the  noblest  of  all  his  works?  Will  he, 
who  has  manifested  the  strongest  displeasure  against 
idolatry,  encourage,  nay,  require  the  human  race  to 
pay  divine  honors  to  one  of  his  creatures?  There  is 
not  such  inconsistency;  there  is  not  such  contradiction 
in  the  divine  Mind. 

It  is  rational  to  suppose  that  the  Author  of  salva- 
tion has  a  nature  and  character  proportionate  to  the 
work.  It  appears  that  it  would  require  as  great 
power,  as  deep  wisdom,  as  much  goodness,  to  repair 
and  restore  a  ruined  world,  as  it  required  to  create  it. 
He  alone,  that  required  obedience  to  the  divine  law, 
has  authority  to  forgive  sin.  He  alone  that  formed 
the  mechanism  of  the  human  mind  can  repair  it.  He 
alone  that  organized  the  human  body  and  animated 
it  with  a  rational  soul,  can  reorganize  and  reunite  it 
with  its  kindred  spirit.  He  alone  that  hath  all  author- 
ity in  heaven  and  in  earth,  can  distribute  reward  and 
punishment  at  the  day  of  judgment.  He  that  doth 
these  things  is  Christ;  and  consequently  Christ  is 
divine. 


ON    THE    MEDIATORIAL    OFFICE    OF    JESUS 
CHRIST. 


To  form  correct  ideas  of  the  nature  and  character  of 
Jesus  Christ,  it  is  important  to  notice  his  offices  and 
his  duties  arising  from  them.  It  is  not  from  one  attri- 
bute, one  name,  one  office,  or  one  work,  we  can  learn 
the  quahties  of  his  nature.  But  from  an  examination 
of  them  all,  we  have  a  more  extensive  view  of  the 
subject;  and  shall  more  probably  be  unbiassed  in  our 
inquiries,  and  be  better  qualified  to  discover  the  truth. 
When  we  examine  a  large  structure,  we  notice  its 
parts;  their  connexion;  and  then  the  general  design 
and  appearance  of  the  whole.  When  we  contemplate 
on  Jesus  Christ,  the  subject  appears  so  vast,  that  we 
need  to  examine  it,  as  it  were,  by  parts,  or  in  diffisrent 
points  of  view.  When  we  have  made  these  distinct 
investigations,  we  can  bring  them  together  and  see 
what  is  the  amount  of  the  whole.  It  will  cast  some 
light  on  this  subject  to  examine  the  mediatorial  office 
and  work  of  Jesus  Christ. 

It  appears  that  the  Father  has  holden  intercourse 
with  mankind  since  the  apostasy,  through  a  mediator. 
He,  who  conversed  with  our  first  parents  in  Eden 
after  their  transgression,  was  probably  the  Word. 
The  Angel,  who  appeared  to  the  patriarchs  and  made 
important  communications  of  the  divine  will;  who  led 
Israel  out  of  Egypt,  conducted  them  through  the  Red 
Sea,  and  directed  them  in  the  wilderness;  who  appear- 
ed many  other  times,  and  spoke  with  divine  authority 


188       THE    MEDIATORIAL     OFFICE    OF   JESUS   CHRIST. 

and  power,  exhibited  traits  of  character,  which  iden- 
tify him  with  the  Lord  Jesus.  He  was  the  Angel  of 
the  covenant.  So  is  Christ.  He  was  the  Mediator 
between  God  and  mankind  after  the  covenant  of 
mercy  began  to  be  revealed.  Christ  is  the  Mediator 
of  the  new  covenant.  He  was  tempted  in  the  wilder- 
ness. So  was  Christ.  It  was  implicitly  declared, 
that  the  Angel  could  forgive  sin.  When  Christ  was 
upon  earth,  he  proved  that  he  had  authority  to  forgive 
sins.  It  is  admitted  by  those,  who  grant  that  Christ 
is  a  Savior,  that  the  saints,  during  the  first  four  thou- 
sand years  of  the  world,  were  saved  in  view  of  the 
merits,  and  through  the  mediation  of  Christ. 

The  Mediator  between  God  and  men,  the  apostle 
calls  "the  man  Christ  Jesus."  From  this  and  similar 
expressions  in  the  Scriptures,  it  has  been  inferred, 
that  Christ  was  merely  a  man.  This  inference  does 
not  appear  to  be  conclusive.  The  Angel,  who  wrestled 
with  Jacob,  was  called  a  man.  Angels,  who  appeared 
at  various  times  on  special  occasions,  were  called  men. 
God  himself  is  called  a  man,  "a  man  of  war."  But 
this  mode  of  expression  does  not  prove  that  they  were 
really  men.  The  Angel,  who  wrestled  with  Jacob, 
and  frequently  appeared  to  the  patriarchs,  and  those 
ministering  angels,  who  were  occasionally  sent  into 
the  world  on  important  business,  were  called  men, 
because  they  assumed  a  human  appearance.  God  is 
figuratively  called  a  man  of  war,  because  he  has 
power  to  overcome,  and  actually  does  overcome  his 
enemies.  But  for  other  reasons,  was  Christ  called  a 
man.  He  really  was  a  man.  He  was  made  flesh. 
He  was  made  of  a  woman.  He  was  tempted  in  all 
points  like  as  we  are.  Because  he  was  a  man,  it  does 
not  follow  that  he  was  simply  a  man.  If  the  appear- 
ances of  men  had  a  different  nature  connected  with 
them,  there  appears  to  be  no  absurdity,  in  admitting 
that  a  real  man  might  have  a  different  nature  con- 
nected with  him.  If  Christ  consist  of  human  and 
divine  nature,  it  is  not  surprising  that  he  should  some- 


THE    MEDIATORIAL    OFFICE    OF     JESUS    CHRIST.        189 

times  be  called  man,  and  sometimes  God.  He  is  called 
one  or  the  other  in  the  Scriptures,  according  to  the 
subject  of  discourse.  If"  the  subject  be  his  humanity, 
he  is  called  man,  or  the  Son  of  man.  If  the  subject 
be  his  divinity,  he  is  called  God,  or  Son  of  God,  or  by 
some  name,  or  in  some  way  ex[_!ressive  of  his  divine 
nature.  The  apostle  Paul,  in  his  address  to  the  rulers 
of  the  synagogue  at  a  certain  time,  says,  "Be  it  known 
unto  you,  therefore,  men  and  brethren,  that  through 
this  man  is  preached  unto  you  the  forgiveness  of  sins." 
He  had  just  before  spoken  of  his  crucifixion  and  res- 
urrection. As  he  had  been  speaking  of  him  in  respect 
to  his  human  nature,  it  was  proper  and  natural  to 
continue  to  speak  of  him  in  respect  to  the  same  nature, 
till  he  had  closed  this  subject  of  his  discourse. 
Besides,  it  was  through  the  sufferings  of  Christ  that 
the  forgiveness  of  sin  is  made  possible.  In  another 
place,  the  same  apostle  says,  "He  has  appointed  a 
day,  in  the  which  he  will  judge  the  world  in  right- 
eousness by  that  man,  whom  he  hath  ordained."  In 
connexion  with  this,  he  spoke  of  his  human  nature;  of 
the  resurrection  of  his  body.  It  was  natural  therefore 
to  speak  of  hmi  in  this  connexion  by  the  name,  or  in 
the  character  of  a  man.  Again  he  says,  "For  since 
by  man  came  death,  by  man  also  came  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead."  The  same  observations  apply  to  this 
text.  The  apostle  had  been  speaking  of  the  resur- 
rection of  Christ's  body,  and  was  contrasting  him  with 
Adam.  It  was  correct,  therefore,  to  continue  to  speak 
of  him,  in  that  connexion,  as  a  man.  When  he  is 
exhibited  in  connexion  with  his  work  of  creation,  he 
is  called  God.  When  it  is  said  he  will  raise  the  dead, 
he  is  called  the  Son  of  God.  When  he  is  contrasted 
with  angels,  and  his  vast  superiority  is  set  forth,  he 
was  addressed  by  the  divine  title,  O  God;  a  title  sig- 
nificant of  the  nature,  in  which  he  had  just  been  rep- 
resented; and  in  which  he  was  so  much  superior  to 
the  angels.  If  Christ  be  both  human  and  divine, 
these  observations  shew   the  propriety  of  exhibiting 


190      THE   MEDIATORIAL    OFFICE   OP   JESUS   CHRIST. 

him  sometimes  in  one  nature  and  sometimes  in  the 
other.  The  connexion  between  the  son  of  man  and 
the  Son  of  God,  is  so  intimate  that  the  name  and  prop- 
erties of  one  are  sometimes  applied  to  the  other. 
"The  second  man  is  the  Lord  from  heaven."  Here 
the  humanity  of  Christ  is  called  the  Lord  from  heaven. 
*'Feed  the  church  of  God,  which  he  hath  purchased 
with  his  own  blood."  In  this  text,  human  blood  is 
called  the  blood  of  God.  "Which  none  of  the  princes 
of  this  world  know,  for  had  they  known  it,  they 
would  not  have  crucified  the  Lord  oj"  glory,''''  1  Cor. 
2:8.  In  this  text  the  tortures  of  the  cross  are  applied 
to  the  Lord  oj" glory,  the  divine  nature  of  Jesus  Christ. 
By  this  phraseology  we  are  not  to  understand  that 
the  divinity  of  Christ  suffered  pain;  but  we  are  to 
understand  the  intimate  connexion  between  his  two 
natures.  This  kind  of  phraseology  is  not  uncommon. 
We  say,  a  man  dies,  when  we  only  mean  that  his  body 
suffers  dissolution.  W^e  say,  man  will  live  for  ever, 
when  we  only  mean  that  his  soul  will  never  see  death. 
Jesus  Christ,  in  his  mediatorial  office  on  earth, 
suffered  deep  humiliation  of  his  divine  nature,  and 
extreme  torture  of  his  humanity.  The  Son  of  God 
not  only  took  upon  him  human  nature,  but  he  took  it 
in  the  form  of  a  servant.  He  made  himself  of  no 
reputation.  He  suffered  the  scorn  and  reproach  of 
the  wicked.  The  gracious  miracles,  which  he  wrought 
by  his  own  divine  power,  were  attributed  to  the  oper- 
ation of  the  evil  spirit.  The  prayer,  which  he  made 
to  the  Father  to  glorify  him,  with  that  glory  which 
he  had  with  him  before  the  world  was,  implies  that 
he  was  divested  of  his  glory  for  a  season,  and  that  he 
was  in  a  state  of  humiliation.  So  intimate  was  the 
union  of  his  two  natures,  that  all  the  ignominy  which 
w^as  directed  against  his  human  nature,  extended  to 
his  divinity.  He  endured  extreme  suffering  in  his 
human  nature.  He  was  grieved  for  the  hardness  of 
the  human  heart.  He  wept  over  Jerusalem,  when 
he   beheld  her  approaching   destruction.      He    was 


THE    MEDIATORIAL    OFFICE    OF   JESUS    CHRIST.         191 

touched  with  a  feeling  of  our  infirmities.  He  suffered 
the  temptations  of  the  great  adversary,  and  the  per- 
secutions of  those,  whom  he  came  to  save.  In  the 
near  approach  of  his  crucifixion,  when  the  tortures  of 
the  cross  presented  themselves  to  his  mind,  he  almost 
recoiled  at  the  prospect.  He  sweat,  as  it  were,  great 
drops  of  blood,  and  prayed  that  if  it  were  possible 
the  cup  of  suffering  might  pass  from  him.  When  he 
was  suspended  upon  the  fatal  wood,  and  the  Father 
withdrew  his  consoling  presence,  he  exclaimed  in  the 
anguish  of  his  soul,  "My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou 
forsaken  me?" 

Jesus  Christ,  by  his  humiliation  and  suffering,  became 
fully  qualified  for  the  work  of  his  mediatorial  office. 
"Though  he  were  a  Son,  yet  learned  he  obedience  by 
the  things  which  he  suffered.  And  being  made  per' 
fect^  he  became  the  Author  of  eternal  salvation  unto 
all  them  that  obey  him.  It  became  him,  for  whom 
are  all  things,  and  by  whom  are  all  things,  in  brings 
ing  many  sons  unto  glory,  to  make  the  Captain 
of  their  salvation  perfect  through  suffering,"  He- 
brews 5:8,  9;  and  2:10.  By  these  declarations 
of  the  apostle  we  are  not  to  understand  that  there 
was  any  imperfection  in  his  nature,  which  was  remov- 
ed by  his  suffering;  or  that  he  was  more  perfect  in 
his  nature  after,  than  he  was  before,  his  humiliation. 
But  the  things  which  he  suffered,  were  a  necessary 
qualification  for  his  mediatorial  office.  The  act  of 
consecration  was  necessary  under  the  law,  to  perfect 
men  for  the  priest's  office.  But  this  act  added  noth- 
ing to  their  natural  qualifications.  So  the  sufferings 
of  Christ  were  a  necessary  preparation  for  his  medi- 
atorial office;  but  made  no  addition  to  the  perfection 
of  his  nature.  Was  there  no  Mediator  then  before 
the  humiliation  and  sufferings  of  Jesus  Christ?  His 
mediation  was  then  efficacious  for  man,  and  acceptable 
to  the  Father,  by  virtue  and  in  view  of  his  abasement, 
and  the  shedding  of  his  blood,  which  were  to  take 
place.     Saints,  before  the   incarnation  of  the  Son  of 


192       THE    MEDIATORIAL    OFFICE    OF    JESUS    CHRIST. 

God,  were  saved  by  faith  in  a  Savior  to  come;  and  the 
Son  of  God  was  an  effectual  Savior,  during  that  period, 
bj  virtue  of  that  sacrifice  which  he  was  to  make. 

The  union  of  divine  and  human  nature,  the  suffer- 
ings of  the  one,  and  the  humihation  of  the  other, 
appear  to  be  revealed  truths;  and  they  appear  to  be 
necessary  qualifications  for  a  Mediator  between  God 
and  man.  Were  the  Mediator  only  divine,  one  party 
only  would  be  literally  represented.  He  could  not 
be  touched  with  the  feeling  of  human  infirmities.  He 
could  not  have  a  personal  sympathy  for  suffering 
humanity.  Nor  could  he  feel  what  allowance  ought 
to  be  made  for  the  weakness  of  human  nature.  He 
could  not  suffer  the  penalty  of  the  law  for  sin;  and  by 
suffering  magnify  and  honor  it.  Condescension  and 
concession  would  appear  to  be  only  on  the  part  of 
Deity.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  Mediator  were 
only  of  a  human  or  created  nature,  one  party  only 
would  be  literally  represented.  It  is  not  probable 
he  would  have  an  adequate  knowledge  of  all  the 
rights  and  prerogatives  of  divine  authority;  at  least,  he 
could  not  have  a  feeling  sense  of  them.  He  could  do 
no  more  than  his  own  personal  duty.  He  could  have 
no  surplus  of  merit,  which  he  could  transfer  to  the 
destitute.  He  could  make  no  expiation  for  sin;  and 
without  expiation,  every  instance  of  pardon  would 
dishonor  the  divine  law,  and  weaken  divine  authority. 
But  by  the  union  of  the  Son  of  God  with  the  Son  of 
man,  both  these  difficulties  are  removed.  Both  par- 
ties are  literally  represented.  Satisfaction  can  be 
made  to  the  violated  law  of  God;  and  the  Father  can 
be  just  while  he  justifies  penitent  sinners.  In  this 
method,  "Mercy  and  truth  are  met  together;  right- 
eousness and  peace  have  kissed  each  other,"  Ps.  85:10. 
If  a  whole  nation  had  revolted  from  their  legal  sove- 
reign, what  individual  would  be  suitable  to  mediate 
between  the  parties  to  produce  reconciliation?  Would 
the  King's  son  alone  be  suitable  for  the  undertaking? 
However  wise  and  virtuous,  and  benevolent  he  might 
be,  would    he   alone  probably  accomplish  the  object? 


THE    MEDIATORIAL    OFFICE    OF    JESUS    CHRIST.         193 

Would  not  rebels  view  him  with  a  jealous  eye?  Would 
an  individual  of  the  nation,  one,  who  had  not  fallen 
into  the  same  transgression,  be  suitable  to  mediate 
between  the  parties?  However  wise  and  virtuous  he 
might  be  in  his  private  capacity,  would  he  have  an 
adequate  knowledge  of  the  rights  of  his  sovereign; 
and  would  he  feel  a  suitable  interest  in  the  support 
and  honor  of  his  throne?  Would  he  have  adequate 
weight  of  character,  either  in  the  sight  of  his  nation 
or  of  his  sovereign,  to  produce  reconciliation  between 
them?  Let  him  unite  with  the  King's  Son,  in  the  work 
of  mediation;  and  the  plan  appears  more  reasonable, 
and  more  probable  of  success.  The  application,  in 
some  important  respects,  cannot  be  misunderstood. 

The  man  Christ  Jesus,  after  his  resurrection,  re- 
ceived great  honor  and  authority.  He  had  endured 
extreme  ignominy  and  suffering.  But  for  the  joy  that 
was  set  before  him,  he  endured  the  cross,  despised  the 
shame,  and  is  seated  at  the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of 
God.  Like  other  men,  he  had  human  feelings,  and 
was  actuated  by  a  hope  of  reward.  Many  passages 
of  sacred  scripture  represent  the  honor,  or  exaltation, 
which  he  received  after  his  resurrection;  and  some 
of  them  represent  it  to  be  a  consequence,  or  reward 
of  his  sufferings.  "After  the  Lord  had  spoken  unto 
tliem,  he  was  received  up  into  heaven,  and  sat  on  the 
right  hand  of  God,"  Mark  16:19.  "Which  he  wrought 
in  Christ,  when  he  raised  him  from  the  dead,  and  set 
him  at  his  own  right  hand  in  the  heavenly  places;  Jar 
above  all  'principality  and  power,  and  might,  and  domin- 
ion, and  every  name  that  is  named,  not  only  in  this  world, 
but  also  in  that  which  is  to  come,^''  Eph.  1:20,  21. 
"When  he  had  by  himself  purged  our  sins,  sat  down 
on  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high,^''  Heb.  1:3. 
"Him  hath  God  exalted  with  his  right  hand,  to  be  a 
Prince  and  a  Savior,"  Acts  5:31.  "He  humbled  him- 
self, and  became  obedient  unto  death,  even  the  death 
of  the  cross.  Wherefore  God  also  hath  highly  exalted 
him,  and  given  him  a  name,  which  is  above  every  name; 
25 


194      THE   MEDIATORIAL    OFFICE    OF    JESUS    CHRIST. 

that  at  the  name  of  Jesus,  every  knee  should  bow,  of 
things  in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under 
the  earth;  and  that  every  tongue  should  confess  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father.''^ 
Phil.  2:8 — 11.  "But  we  see  Jesus,  who  was  made  a 
little  lower  than  the  angels,  for  the  suffering  of  death, 
crowned  with  glory  and  honor,^''  Heb.  2:9.  In  all  these 
texts,  it  will  be  seen  by  examination,  that  the  man 
Christ  Jesus  was  exalted  and  honored.  Divinity  is  in- 
capable of  absolute  exaltation.  The  Son  of  God,  who, 
for  a  time,  divested  himself  of  the  form  of  God,  might 
be  said  to  be  comparatively  exalted,  when  he  was  re- 
stored to  that  glory,  which  he  had  with  the  Father, 
before  the  world  was.  But  the  foregoing  texts  evi- 
dently  relate  to  the  humanity  of  Christ. 

After  Jesus  was  risen  from  the  dead,  he  said  to  his 
disciples,  "All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and 
in  earth,"  Matt.  28:18.  Before  his  crucifixion,  when 
he  was  speaking  of  his  power  and  authority,  he  said, 
"The  hour  is  coming  and  now  is,  when  the  dead  shall 
hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God;  and  they  that  hear 
shall  live.  For  as  the  Father  hath  life  in  himself,  so 
hath  he  given  to  the  Son  to  have  life  in  himself;  and 
hath  given  him  authority  to  execute  judgment  also,  he- 
cause  he  is  the  Son  ofman^''  John  5:25,26,27.  "When 
the  Son  o/*m«?i  shall  come  in  his  glory,  and  all  the  holy 
angels  with  him,  then  shall  he  sit  upon  the  throne  of 
his  glory;  and  before  him  shall  be  gathered  all  na- 
tions," &c.  Matt.  25:31,32.  The  apostle  Paul,  speak- 
ing of  the  resurrection  and  day  of  judgment,  says, 
"He  hath  appointed  a  day,  in  which  he  will  judge  the 
world  in  righteousness,  by  that  man  whom  he  hath 
ordained,"  Acts  17:31.  From  these  and  several 
other  texts,  it  is  evident  that  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead,  and  the  final  judgment,  are  attributed  sometimes 
to  the  Son  of  God,  and  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  and 
sometimes  to  the  Son  of  man.  When  the  subject  of 
discourse  is  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  then  these  great 
works  are   ascribed  to  him  as  man,  or  Son  of  man. 


THE    MEDIATORIAL    OFFICE    OP   JESUS    CHRIST.       l95 

When  Christ  would  exhibit  himself  on  an  equality 
with  the  Father,  in  respect  to  the  gieatness  of  his 
works  and  the  honor  to  be  given  him,  he  calls  himself 
the  Son  of  God.  Speaking  of  the  resurrection,  he 
says,  "the  dead  shall  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God; 
and  they  that  hear  shall  live."  The  cause  he  assigns, 
for  which  he  is  vested  with  authority  to  judge  the 
world,  is,  that  he  is  the  Son  of  man.  When  the  Son  of 
God  is  called  the  Son  of  man,  the  expression  is  parallel 
with  this  text,  "The  Word  was  made  flesh."  By 
this  phraseology,  it  is  not  to  be  understood  that  the 
Word,  or  Son  of  God,  changed  his  nature  and  became 
only  a  man.  But  it  is  to  be  understood  that  he  came 
into  a  peculiarly  intimate  union  with  a  man.  "Foras- 
much then  as  the  children  are  partakers  of  flesh  and 
blood,  he  also  himself  likewise  took  part  of  the  same," 
Heb.  2:14.  His  taking  flesh  and  blood  implies  that  he, 
who  took,  and  that,  which  was  taken,  were  not  iden- 
tically the  same. 

Since  the  resurrection  and  ascension  of  the  body  of 
Jesus,  the  Son  of  man,  in  union  with  the  Son  of  God,  is 
seated  on  the  throne,  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father. 
In  this  situation  the  martyr  Stephen  saw  him  just  be- 
fore his  execution,  when  he  was  filled  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  looked  up  to  heaven.  In  this  state  of 
exaltation,  the  Son  of  man  participates  with  the  Son  of 
God,  the  government  of  the  mediatorial  kingdom.  At 
the  last  day,  the  man  Christ  Jesus  in  union  and  in  joint 
operation  with  the  divine  Son,  will  raise  the  dead  and 
judge  the  world.  At  this  time,  and  in  this  union  and 
joint  operation  with  the  Son  of  God,  he  will  put  down, 
or  subdue,  all  rule  and  all  authority  and  power,  which 
were  opposed  to  his  mediatorial  government.  He 
will  put  all  enemies  under  his  feet.  He  will  destroy 
death  and  him  that  had  the  power  of  death,  that  is, 
the  devil.  Then  will  the  first  Gospel  predictiori  be 
fulfilled,  "The  Seed  of  the  woman  shall  bruise  the 
serpent*s  head."  This  work  will  he  perform,  and  this 
exaltation  will  he  receive  as  a  reward  of  his  suflerings. 


196       THE    MEDIATORIAL   OFFICE    OF    JESUS    CHRIST. 

This  is  a  great  work,  and  a  great  honor.  Of  this 
work  and  of  this  honor,  the  man  Christ  Jesus  par- 
ticipates with  the  Son  of  God. 

Now  Cometh  the  end  of  this  economy.  The  media- 
torial kingdom  is  completed.  Christ  delivers  it  up  to 
God,  even  the  Father.  The  mediatorial  office  and 
work  terminate.  A  new  dispensation  commences. 
The  Son  himself,  i.  e.  the  Son  of  man,  the  man  Christ 
Jesus,  no  longer  exercises  authority  in  that  depart- 
ment, which  has  now  ceased;  but  becomes  subjected 
to  him,  who  gave  him  this  authority;  and  God, 
(Aleim)  without  the  distinctions  of  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit,  and  without  different  departments  of  ad- 
ministration, which  were  manifested  during  the  work 
of  redemption,  will  be  all  in  all.  He  will  hold  the 
reins  of  government,  without  any  medium,  as  he  did 
before  the  work  of  redemption  commenced. 

That  the  subjection  of  the  Son,  at  the  close  of  the 
mediatorial  economy,  signifies  the  subjection  of  the 
Son  of  man,  or  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  appears  evident 
from  the  design  and  connexion  of  the  apostle's  dis- 
course. He  had  been  speaking  of  the  death,  burial, 
and  resurrection  of  Christ.  From  his  resurrection  he 
argued  the  resurrection  of  the  dead.  "For  since  by 
man  came  death,  by  man  also  came  the  resurrection 
of  the  dead,"  1  Cor.  15:21.  Without  the  least  in- 
timation of  change  of  the  subject,  he  speaks  of  the 
subjection  of  the  Son.  It  is  a  fair  inference  then, 
that  this  Son  is  the  Son  of  man. 


CHRIST  THE  ANGEL  OF  THE  COVENANT. 


"Behold  1  send  an  Angel  before  thee,"  Exodus  23:20. 
Many  extraordinary  appearances  of  an  angel,  or  of 
the  Angel  of  the  Lord,  are  recorded  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. It  is  important  to  know  who  this  Angel  was. 
Satisfactory  information,  on  this  subject,  may  be 
found  in  the  names,  which  were  given  him,  in  what  he 
said  of  himself;  in  what  he  did;  and  in  the  respect 
which  was  paid  to  him.  The  name  angel,  signifies 
messenger,  or  one  sent.  It  designates  not  the  nature, 
but  the  office,  of  the  agent. 

The  Angel  of  the  Lord  appeared  unto  Hagar,  after 
she  had  fled  from  her  mistress;  and  commanded  her 
to  return  and  be  subject  to  her  authority.  He  prom- 
ised her  saying:  "I  will  multiply  thy  seed  exceedingly, 
that  it  shall  not  be  numbered  for  multitude.  And  she 
called  the  name  of  the  Lord  that  spake  unto  her,  Thou 
God  seest  me,"  Gen.  16:10,  13.  In  this  account  of 
the  Angel's  appearance,  it  is  noticable  that  he  prom- 
ised to  do  a  work,  which  divine  power  alone  could  do; 
and  he  promised  it  in  a  style  peculiar  to  God.  "I  will 
multiply  thy  seed  exceedingly."  He  spoke,  to  appear- 
ance, upon  his  own  authority;  and  it  appears  that 
Hagar  understood  him  so;  for  "she  called  the  name 
of  the  Lord,  (rtin^)  that  spake  unto  her.  Thou 
God  seest  me.^'^ 

After  Hagar  and  her  son  were  cast  out  from  the 
house  of  Abraham;  and  she  apprehended  that  her 
son  would  die  for  want  of  sustenance,  "she   lifted  up 


198  CHRIST    THE    ANGEL   OF   THE    COVENANT. 

her  voice  and  wept;  and  God  heard  the  voice  of  the 
lad;  and  the  Angel  of  God  called  to  Hagar  out  of 
heaven,  and  said  unto  her,  what  aileth  thee,  Hagar? 
fear  not;  for  God  hath  heard  the  voice  of  the  lad 
where  he  is.  Arise,  lift  up  the  lad,  and  hold  him  in 
thine  hand;  for  I  will  make  him  a  great  nation;  and 
God  opened  her  ejes,  and  she  saw  a  well  of  water," 
Gen.  21:16 — 19.  In  this  history  of  the  bond  woman 
and  her  son,  God,  and  the  Angel  of  God,  are  repre- 
sented, having  the  same  knowledge,  the  same  care, 
and  the  same  authority  over  them.  God  heard  the 
voice  of  the  child.  The  Angel  of  God  called  to  Hagar. 
God  opened  her  eyes.  The  Angel  of  God  promised 
to  make  the  lad  a  great  nation.  There  appears  to 
be  a  certain  distinction  here  made,  between  God,  and 
the  Angel  of  God;  but  in  this  history  the  latter  does 
not  appear  inferior  in  the  qualities  of  his  nature  to 
the  former. 

God  tried  Abraham;  and  commanded  him  to  take 
his  son  Isaac  and  offer  him  for  a  burnt  offering.  Abra- 
ham obeyed.  He  took  his  son;  went  to  the  place, 
which  God  had  told  him  of;  built  an  altar;  laid  on 
the  wood;  bound  his  son;  laid  him  upon  the  wood, 
and  took  the  knife  to  slay  him.  "And  the  Angel  of 
the  Lord  called  to  him  out  of  heaven  and  said,  Abra- 
ham, Abraham!  and  he  said,  here  am  I.  And  he  said. 
Lay  not  thy  hand  upon  the  lad,  neither  do  any  thing 
unto  him;  for  now  I  know  that  thou  fearest  God,  see- 
ing thou  hast  not  withheld  thy  son,  thine  only  son  from 
me.  And  Abraham  called  the  name  of  that  place 
Jehovah-jireh,"  i.  e.  the  Lord  will  see  or  provide. 
"And  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  called  unto  Abraham  out 
of  heaven  the  second  time,  and  said,  by  myself  have 
I  sworn,  saith  the  Lord,  for  because  thou  hast  done 
this  thing,  and  hast  not  withheld  thy  son,  thine  only 
son;  that  in  blessing  I  will  bless  thee;  and  in  multi- 
plying, I  will  multiply  thy  seed  as  the  stars  of  heaven," 
Gen.  21:11,  12,  14— J  7. 


CHRIST  THE  ANGEL  OF  THE  COVENANT.     199 

In  the  first  of  these  two  appearances  of  the  Angel 
of  the  Lord,  he  speaks  as  God  himself.  He  addressed 
Abraham  in  the  same  manner,  and,  to  appearance, 
with  the  same  authority,  with  which  God  had  before 
addressed  him.  The  offering  of  Isaac  was  to  be  made  to 
God.  But  mark  the  words  of  the  Angel.  "For  now  I 
know  that  thou  fearest  God,  seeing  thou  hast  not  with- 
held thy  son,  thine  only  son  from  mc,"  Gen.  22:12.  The 
conclusion  is,  that  it  was  the  same  thing  to  offer  his 
son  to  God,  or  to  the  Angel  of  the  Lord.  The  second 
time  the  Angel  called  to  Abraham,  he  speaks  not  his 
own  words;  but  addresses  him  in  the  words  of  the 
Lord.  But  these  words  are  precisely  the  same  in 
effect,  which  the  Angel  had  before  spoken.  The 
Angel  said  to  Abraham,  "seeing  thou  hast  not  with- 
held thy  son,  thine  only  son."  The  Lord  said  by  the 
Angel,  "because  thou  hast  done  this  thing,  and  hast 
not  withheld  thy  son,  thine  only  son."  The  Angel 
passed  his  word  respecting  Ishmael,  "I  will  make 
him  a  great  nation."  The  Lord  passed  his  word  with 
an  oath  to  Abraham,  by  the  mouth  of  the  Angel,  "I 
will  multiply  thy  seed  as  the  stars  of  heaven."  While 
a  certain  distinction  is  made  between  the  Angel  of  the 
Lord,  and  the  Lord  himself,  there  is  such  a  union 
manifested,  that  the  Angel  declares,  upon  his  own 
authority,  that  a  certain  important  purpose  shall  be 
accomplished.  He  then  communicates  the  declara- 
tion of  the  Lord,  to  the  same  or  similar  effect.  The 
offering  of  Isaac  to  God,  according  to  his  command, 
was  not  withholding  him  from  the  Angel;  and  it  was 
also  not  withholdins:  him  from  the  Lord.  It  is  hard 
to  conceive  that  there  should  be  such  union,  such 
intimacy,  such  equality  between  the  Creator  and  a 
creature. 

When  Jacob  was  on  his  way  from  Laban  to  his  own 
country,  he  was  left  alone;  "and  there  wrestled  a 
man  with  him  until  the  breaking  of  the  day."  This 
man  changed  his  name,  blessed  him,  and  told  him  that 
he  had  power  with  God  and  with   man,  and  that  he 


200  CHRIST    THE    ANGEL    OF    THE    COVENANT. 

had  prevailed.  "And  Jacob  called  the  name  of  the 
place  Peniel;  for  I  have  seen  God  face  to  face,"  Gen= 
32:30.  The  prophet  Hosea  tells  us  who  this  man 
was,  with  whom  Jacob  wrestled.  Speaking  of  Jacob 
he  says,  "By  his  strength  he  had  power  with  God; 
yea,  he  had  power  over  the  Angel,  and  prevailed;  he 
wept  and  made  supplication  unto  him;  he  found  him 
in  Bethel,  and  there  he  spake  with  us;  even  the  Lord 
God  of  hosts;  the  Lord  is  his  memorial,"  Hosea  12:3 
— 5.  The  prophet  testifies  that  the  man,  with  whom 
Jacob  wrestled  was  the  Angel.  He  was  probably 
called  a  man,  because  he  assumed  the  appearance  of 
a  man.  The  prophet  goes  on  and  says,  that  Jacob 
found  him,  i.  e.  the  Angel,  in  Bethel.  We  find  that 
he,  whom  the  patriarch  found  in  Bethel,  was  the 
Lord,  who  said,  "1  am  the  Lord  God  of  Abraham  thy 
father,  and  the  God  of  Isaac. — And  Jacob  awaked 
out  of  his  sleep,  and  he  said.  Surely  the  Lord  is  in 
this  place  and  I  knew  it  not,"  Gen.  28:13,  16.  The 
prophet  calls  this  Angel  "^/le  Lord  God  of  hosts;  the 
Lord  is  his  memoriaV  It  has  been  objected,  that 
"when  the  scripture  informs  that  it  was  the  Angel  of 
the  Lord,  who  said,  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,"  &;c.  the 
account  is  equally  plain  to  the  understandings  of  men, 
that  he  spake  not  his  own  words,  or  in  reference  to 
himself,  but  the  words  of  Jehovah,  or  in  the  name  of 
God.*  If  this  objection  were  valid  against  what  the 
Angel  said  of  himself,  it  would  not  lie  against  what 
the  prophet  said  of  him.  If  a  created  angel  could 
personate  his  Creator,  by  what  figure  of  speech,  by 
what  license,  could  the  prophet  call  him  the  Lord 
God  of  hosts;  and  say  that  "the  Lord  (i.  e.  Jehovah) 
is  his  memorial?" 

When  Moses  kept  the  flock  of  his  father-in-law  at 
Horeb,  "The  Angel  of  the  Lord  appeared  unto  him 
in  a  flame  of  fire  out  of  the  midst  of  a  bush;  and  he 
looked,  and  behold,  the  bush  burned  with  fire;  and 

*  ShermaD. 


CHRIST    THE    ANGEL    OF  THE    COVENANT.  201 

the  bush  was  not  consumed.  And  Moses  said,  I  will 
now  turn  aside  and  see  this  great  sight,  why  the  bush 
is  not  burned.  And  when  the  Lord  saw  that  he  turned 
aside  to  see,  God  called  to  him  out  of  the  midst  of  the 
bush,  and  said,  Moses,  Moses,  and  he  said,  Here  ami. 
And  he  said,  draw  not  nigh  hither;  put  off  thy  shoes 
from  off  thy  feet;  for  the  place  whereon  thou  standest 
is  holy  ground.  Moreover,  he  said,  I  am  the  God  of 
thy  father,  tiie  God  of  Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac, 
and  the  God  of  Jacob.  And  Moses  hid  his  face;  for 
he  was  afraid  to  look  upon  Go(/,"  Ex.  3:2 — 6.  During 
the  interview  between  Moses  and  him  who  was  in 
the  bush,  the  Lord  said  unto  him,  "I  will  send  thee 
unto  Pharaoh,  that  thou  raayest  bring  forth  my  peo- 
ple, the  children  of  Israel,  out  of  Egypt,"  ver.  10.  Moses 
then  inquired  of  God,  by  what  name  he  should  call 
him,  when  he  should  go  with  his  message  to  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel.  "And  God  said  unto  Moses,  /  am  that 
1  am;  and  he  said,  thus  shalt  thou  say  unto  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel,  I  AM  hath  sent  me  unto  you,"  ver.  14. 

In  this  history  we  find  that  the  Angel  of  the  Lord 
appeared  unto  Moses.  There  is  no  mention  that  any 
other  appeared  to  him  in  the  bush.  Ho  that  was  in 
the  bush  called  unto  him;  and  we  are  informed  by  the 
inspired  historian,  that  it  was  God,  who  called  to  him. 
It  is  a  natural  conclusion,  therefore,  that  this  Angel 
was  the  God  who  spake,  who  called  himself  the  God 
of  Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob;  who  called  himself 
I  AM,  a  name  implying  self-existence. 

Stephen,  in  his  answer  to  the  council,  before  whom 
he  was  accused,  gave  a  brief  history  from  the  time  of 
Abraham  to  the  time  of  Solomon.  In  this  epitome 
he  mentions  the  extraordinary  appearance  of  the 
burning  bush.  Speaking  of  Moses,  he  says,  "The 
same  did  God  send  to  be  a  ruler  and  a  deliverer  by 
the  hand  of  the  Angel,  which  appeared  to  him  in  the 
bush."  The  immediate  agent  who  sent  Moses,  is, 
therefore,  the  Angel.  In  the  history  which  Moses 
gives,  we  find  but  one  agent,  i.  e.  the  immediate  agent, 
26 


202     CHRIST  THE  ANGEL  OF  THE  COVENANT. 

introduced,  the  Angel  of  the  Lord.  In  the  course  of 
the  history,  we  find,  that,  without  any  change  of  the 
subject,  the  Lord  saw  that  Moses  turned  aside  to  see; 
God  called  unto  hiai  out  of  the  midst  of  the  bush;  he 
said,  I  am  the  God  of  thy  father;  I  will  send  thee  to 
Pharaoh;  /  am  that  I  am.  The  subject,  and  the  only 
subject  to  which  all  these  names  refer,  is  the  Angel  of 
the  Lord,  ver.  2.  Consequently,  the  names.  Lord,  God, 
and  I  AM,  are  applied  to  him.  But  if  he  were  merely 
a  created  angel,  and  said  and  did  nothing  on  this  occa- 
sion, he  is  introduced  to  great  disadvantage;  and  his 
appearance  does  not  seem  to  answer  any  important 
purpose.  But  the  fact  is,  he  did  send  Moses  to  deliver 
the  children  of  Israel;  and  we  have  dirine  testimony 
that  God  sent  him. 

After  the  Israelites  had  departed  from  Egypt,  God 
led  the  people  through  the  way  of  the  wilderness  of 
the  Red  Sea.  "And  the  Lord  went  before  them  by 
day  in  a  pillar  of  a  cloud  to  lead  them  the  way,  and 
hy  night  in  a  pillar  of  fire  to  give  them  light,"  Ex. 
13:21.  When  the  Israelites  had  travelled  as  far  as 
the  Red  Sea,  and  the  Egyptians  pressed  hard  upon 
them,  it  is  recorded  that,  "The  Angel  of  God,  which 
went  before  the  camp  of  Israel,  removed  and  went 
behind  them;  and  the  pillar  of  the  cloud  went  from 
before  their  face,  and  stood  behind  them,"  Ex.  14:19. 
By  a  comparison  of  these  two  representations  we  find 
that  he,  who  went  before  the  children  of  Israel  in  a 
pillar  of  cloud  to  the  Red  Sea,  was  called  the  Lord, 
(mn*)  But  on  the  shore  of  the  Red  Sea,  he  that 
was  in  the  cloud  changed  his  position,  and  went  from 
before  the  camp  of  Israel,  and  stood  behind  them; 
and  the  cloud  moved  in  like  manner.  He  is  here 
called  the  Angel  of  God.  It  is  evident  that  he,  who 
went  before  them,  is  he,  who  removed  and  went  be- 
hind them.  It  follows,  of  course,  that  the  Angel  of 
God  is  the  Lord  himself. 

Jehovah  promised  Moses  that  his   presence  (or  his 
face)  should  go  with  him.     We  find  that  the  divine 


CHRIST  THE  ANGEL  OP  THE  COVENANT.     203 

presence  in  the  cloud,  did  accompany  him  and  the 
people,  during  their  journeyings  in  the  wilderness. 
But  we  learn  by  Stephen,  that  it  was  the  Angel,  that 
was  with  Moses  in  the  church  in  the  wilderness.  It 
follows,  of  course,  that  the  presence  of  the  Angel  was 
the  presence  of  Jehovah. 

God,  in  his  preface  to  the  decalogue,  addresses  his 
servant  Moses  thus,  "I  am  the  Lord  thy  God,  which 
have  brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of 
the  house  of  bondage."  He  then  proceeds  to  give 
him  the  law.  But  who  was  it  that  brought  Moses 
out  of  Egypt?  It  was  the  Angel,  who  appeared  to 
him  in  the  bush,  who  styled  himself  I  AM;  and  sent 
him  to  Pharaoh,  to  let  Israel  go;  it  was  the  Angel, 
who  went  before  him  in  a  pillar  of  cloud,  to  the  bor- 
ders of  the  Red  Sea;  and  went  behind  him  through 
the  deep,  to  protect  him  from  the  Egyptian  host;  it 
was  the  Angel,  who  was  with  him  in  the  wilderness, 
Avho  protected,  guided,  and  supported  him.  This 
Angel  was  called  Jehovah;  and  I  AM  was  his  memo- 
rial. Stephen,  speaking  of  Moses,  testifies  to  the 
same  effect.  "This  is  he  that  was  in  the  church  in 
the  wilderness,  with  the  Angela  which  spake  to  him  in 
the  mount  Sinai,  and  with  our  fathers;  who  received 
the  lively  oracles  to  give  unto  us,"  Acts  7:38.  From 
this  testimony  it  appears  that  the  Angel,  who  was 
with  Moses  in  the  wilderness,  spake  the  law  to  him; 
and  it  has  been  shewn  that  that  Angel  was  the  Lord 
Jehovah. 

But  the  same  Stephen  testifies  thus,  "Who  have 
received  the  law  by  the  disposition  of  Angels,"  Acts 
7:53.  The  apostle  Paul,  writing  to  the  Galatians 
concerning  the  law,  says,  "It  was  ordained  by  angels 
in  the  hand  of  a  mediator,"  Gal.  3:19.  To  the 
Hebrews  he  says,  "if  the  word  spoken  by  angels  was 
steadfast,"  &c.  From  these  declarations,  it  has  been 
inferred  that  angels  gave  the  law  from  Sinai.  Enough 
has  been  said  to  shew  that  he,  who  led  Israel  out  of 
Egypt,  guided  them  in  a  pillar  of  cloud,  and  appeared 


204     CHRIST  THE  ANGEL  OF  THE  COVENANT. 

in  the  bush,  gave  the  law  from  mount  Sinai;  and  that 
the  Angel,  who  performed  this  was  not  a  created 
angel,  but  was  Jehovah.  Moses  states  expressly,  that 
Jehovah  descended  upon  the  mount  in  fire;  that 
Jehovah  conversed  with  him;  that  God  spake  all 
these  words,  viz.  the  words  of  the  law.  It  is  neces- 
sary therefore  to  reconcile  the  account,  which  Moses 
gives  of  the  publication  of  the  law,  with  the  account 
which  Stephen  and  the  apostle  Paul  give  of  it.  The 
first  states  that  God  spake  all  the  words  of  the  law; 
the  latter  states  that  it  was  received  by  the  disposition 
of  angels;  that  it  was  ordained  and  spoken  by  angels. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  God  was  the  Author 
and  prime  Communicator  of  the  law.  That  he  em- 
ployed angels  on  mount  Sinai  on  the  important  occa- 
sion of  promulgating  the  law,  is  abundantly  evident. 
Moses,  before  his  death,  blessed  the  twelve  tribes  of 
Israel.  In  the  introduction  of  his  blessing,  he  says, 
"The  Lord  came  from  Sinai,  and  rose  up  from  Seir 
unto  them;  he  shined  forth  from  mount  Paran,  and  he 
came  with  ten  thousands  of  saints;  from  his  right  hand 
went  a  fiery  law  for  them,"  Deut.  33:2.  The  Psalm- 
ist, describing  the  majesty  of  God,  saith,  "Sinai  itself 
was  moved  at  the  presence  of  God,  the  God  of  Isra- 
el," Ps.  68:8.  "The  Lord  gave  the  word;  great  was 
the  company  of  them  that  published  it,"  ver.  11. 
"The  chariots  of  God  are  twenty  thousand,  even 
thousands  of  angels;  the  Lord  is  among  them  as  in 
Sinai,  in  the  holy  place,"  ver.  17.  From  a  view  of  these 
texts,  and  from  a  general  view  of  the  subject,  it  ap- 
pears that  that  uncreated  Angel,  who  spake  with 
Moses  in  mount  Sinai,  and  was  repeatedly  called  Jeho- 
vah, was  attended  with  a  host  of  angels  on  Sinai;  and 
that  he  employed  them  as  subordinate  agents  in  pro- 
mulgating the  law.  But  there  is  no  evidence  that 
they  personated  Jehovah,  saying,  I  am  the  Lord  God. 

The  Lord,  to  encourage  Moses  on  his  way  to  the 
land  of  promise,  says,  "Behold  I  send  an  Angel  before 
thee  to  keep  thee  in  the  way,  and  to  bring  thee  into 


CHRIST    THE    ANGEI.    OF    THE    COVENANT.  205 

the  place,  which  I  have  prepared.  Beware  of  him, 
and  obey  his  voice,  provoke  him  not;  for  he  will  not 
pardon  your  transgressions,  for  my  name  is  in  him," 
Ex.  23:20,  21.  In  this  description  of  the  Angel,  there 
are  characteristic  marks  of  divinity.  It  was  required 
to  obey  his  commands,  and  not  to  excite  his  anger;  and 
the  reason  assigned  is,  "he  will  not  pardon  your  trans- 
gressions." We  are  ready  to  adopt  the  language  of 
the  Jewish  doctors  of  the  law,  and  inquire,  "\Vho  can 
forgive  sins  but  God  only?"  Forgiveness  of  sin  is  the 
prerogative  of  him,  against  whom  it  is  committed. 
God  says  of  the  Angel,  whom  he  sent,  "my  name  is  in 
him."  The  Angel  is  called  by  his  name.  He  is  called 
Lord,  God,  Jehovah,  I  AM.  The  name  of  a  thing  is 
frequently  used  as  synonymous  with  the  thing  itself. 
The  name  of  God  is  often  used  for  God.  When  Christ 
prays,  "Father,  glorify  thy  name,"  his  request  is,  that 
the  Father  would  glorify  himself.  In  many  other 
places  in  the  scriptures  the  word  name^  is  used  in  the 
same  manner.  From  this  it  is  inferred,  if  God's  name 
was  in  the  Angel,  God  himself  was  in  him.  This 
phraseology,  while  it  conveys  an  idea  of  a  distinction 
between  God  and  the  Angel,  also  conveys  an  idea  of 
a  most  intimate  union;  a  union,  which  authorizes  the 
same  names  to  be  applied;  and  the  same  operations 
to  be  attributed  to  each.  The  original  word,  ren- 
dered, in  him,  is  of  greater  force  than  the  translation, 
and  expresses  the  inmost,  or  most  intimate  part  of 
any  thing;  the  inner  or  inmost  part  of  man,  his  mind, 
heart,  or  inmost  thought."  Park.  Lex.  No  word,  per- 
haps, could  express  a  more  intimate  union  between 
God  and  the  Angel,  than  this. 

This  Angel  is  called  "the  Angel  of  his  (i.  e.  God's) 
presence."  He  saved  Israel.  "In  his  love  and  in 
his  pity  he  redeemed  them;  and  he  bare  them,  and 
carried  them  all  the  days  of  old,"  Isaiah  63:9.  The 
name.  Angel  of  his  presence,  or  as  it  may  be  accu- 
rately translated,  jingcl  of  his  face,  imports  that  he 
manifested  the  presence  of  God;    that  where  he  was. 


206  CHRIST   THE   ANGEL    OF   THE    COVENANT. 

there  was  the  face  of  God.  That  it  was  God,  who 
saved  and  redeemed  Israel,  is  not  doubted.  But  this 
salvation  is  attributed  to  the  Angel;  and  there  is 
no  intimation  given  that  he  did  not  do  it  by  his  own 
power. 

He  is  called  the  messenger,  i.  e.  Angel  of  the  cove- 
nant. This  name  imports  that  he  communicated  the 
covenant;  or  that  he  was  a  contracting  party  in  the 
covenant;  or  that  he  was  the  leading  subject  of  it. 
Either  of  these  significations  implies  that  he  is  the 
Lord.  Besides,  he  is  called  the  Lord  in  the  same 
text,  in  which  he  is  called  the  Angel  of  the  covenant. 
See  Mai.  3:1. 

Three  men  called  on  Abraham,  in  the  plains  of 
Mamre,  as  he  sat  in  the  tent  door  in  the  heat  of  the 
day.  They  were  travelling  toward  Sodom.  Abraham 
respectfully  addressed  them;  and  courteously  invited 
them  to. stop  and  take  refreshment.  In  the  course 
of  their  conversation  with  this  pious  man,  one  appears 
to  be  much  more  eminent  than  the  others.  He  not 
only  takes  the  lead  in  conversation,  but  he  appears  to 
speak  with  independent  authority.  When  he  speaks 
to  Abraham,  the  sacred  hfstorian  states  that  it  is  the 
Lord,  (nili*)  who  speaks  to  him;  and  this  he  does 
repeatedly.  At  length  "the  men  turned  their  faces 
from  thence  and  went  toward  Sodom;  but  Abraham 
stood  yet  before  the  Lord."  It  appears  evident  that 
one  of  those  three  men,  who  appeared  to  Abraham, 
vvas  the  Lord,  who  conversed  with  him.  They  were 
called  men,  because  they  were  in  the  appearance  of 
men.  While  they  were  conversing  with  the  patri- 
arch, without  intimation  of  a  new  speaker,  one  in  the 
character  of  Lord,  i.  e.  Jehovah,  addressed  him.  This 
one  remained  with  Abraham,  while  the  others  went 
their  way.  It  is  evident,  or  at  least,  it  is  in  the  high- 
est degree  probable,  that  he,  who  remained,  was  one 
of  the  three.  Because,  at  even,  two  angels,  and  two 
only,  are  named,  went  into  Sodom  to  destroy  the 
place. 


CHRIST  THE  ANGEL  OF  THE  COTENANT.     207 

Divine  honors  were  paid  to  the  Angel  of  the  Lord. 
Jacob,  a  short  time  before  his  death,  commanded  that 
the  sons  of  Joseph  should  be  brought  unto  him,  that 
he  might  bless  them.  When  their  father  presented 
them  before  him,  "he  blessed  Joseph  and  said,  God^ 
before  whom  mj  fathers,  Abraham  and  Isaac  did 
walk,  the  God,  which  fed  me  all  my  life  long  unto  this 
day,  the  Angel,  which  redeemed  me  from  all  evil, 
bless  the  lads."  Jn  this  passage  there  is  a  supplica- 
tion to  the  Angel,  as  well  as  to  God;  and  as  the  verb, 
bless,  (in  the  original)  is  in  the  singular  number,  he 
made  no  distinction  between  them,  or  rather  he  ad- 
dressed them  as  one,  or  distributively.  Of  course, 
prayer  was  addressed  to  the  Angel;  and  it  was  ad- 
dressed for  a  blessing,  not  verbal,  but  real,  which 
divine  power  only  could  bestow. 

"And  all  the  people  saw  the  cloudy  pillar  stand  at 
the  tabernacle  door;  and  all  the  people  rose  up  and 
worshipped,  every  man  in  his  tent  door,"  Ex.  33:10. 
It  cannot  be  supposed  that  they  paid  homage  to  the 
pillar  of  cloud;  but  to  him,  that  was  in  it.  The  scrip- 
tures are  express,  that  it  was  the  Angel,  who  was  in 
the  cloud,  and  guided  Israel.  It  appears  therefore, 
that  they  worshipped  the    Angel. 

"And  it  came  to  pass,  when  Joshua  was  by  Jericho, 
that  he  lifted  up  his  eyes  and  looked,  and  behold, 
there  stood  a  man  over  against  him,  with  his  sword 
drawn  in  his  hand,  and  Joshua  went  unto  him,  and  said 
unto  him,  art  thou  for  us,  or  for  our  adversaries?  And  he 
said,  nay;  but  as  Captain  of  the  host  of  the  Lord,  am 
I  now  come.  And  Joshua  fell  on  his  face  to  the  earth, 
and  did  worship;  and  said  unto  him,  what  saith  my 
Lord  unto  his  servant?  And  the  Captain  of  the  Lord's 
host  said  unto  Joshua,  loose  thy  shoe  from  off  thy 
foot;  for  the  place  whereon  thoustandest  is  holy;  and 
Joshua  did  so,"  Joshua  5:13,14,15.  This  man,  who 
appeared  to  Joshua,  was  undoubtedly  the  same,  that 
appeared  to  Jacob  and  wrestled  with  him.     But  after-^ 


208  CHRltST    THE    ANGEL    OF    THE    COVENANT. 

ward  Jacob  said  he  had  seen  God  face  to  face.  This 
man  is  called  Captain  of  the  Lord's  host.  The  Isra- 
elites were  called  the  host,  or  the  armies  of  the  living 
God.  The  Captain,  who  led  this  host  was  the  Angel 
who  went  with  theoi  in  the  pillar  of  cloud.  If  Joshua's 
falling  on  his  face  to  the  earth  and  worshipping,  do 
not  prove  that  he  gave  him  divine  reverence,  the 
command  to  loose  his  shoe  from  off  his  foot,  because 
the  place  where  he  stood  was  holy,  implies  it.  When 
God  called  to  Moses  out  of  the  bush,  he  commanded 
him  to  put  off  his  shoes  from  his  feet,  because  he  stood 
on  holy  ground.  This  was  commanded  as  an  expres- 
sion of  respect  to  the  divine  Majesty.  It  is  presum- 
able that  no  creature  would  claim  this  homage,  which 
God  claimed  for  himself.  (Hoc  exemplo  sacerdotes 
Judaici  calceas  exuunt  in  templo  ministrantes.  Pool 
in  loco.) 

In  the  history  of  Gideon  we  find  that  the  Angel  of 
the  Lord  appeared  to  him.  In  the  course  of  the  his- 
tory he  is  called  the  Lord.  Gideon,  unconscious  who 
he  was,  prepared  a  present,  and  offered  it  to  him. 
The  Angel,  not  needing  the  sustenance  of  mortals, 
appropriated  it  as  a  burnt  offering.  Thus  Gideon 
unwittingly  sacrificed  unto  him;  or  rather  the  Angel 
caused  him  to  make  this  sacrifice  unto  himself. 

From  what  has  been  said  respecting  the  Angel, 
whose  appearances  are  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament, 
it  appears  that  he  was  not  a  created  angel,  but  that 
he  was  divine.  But  it  is  objected  that  it  is  absurd  "to 
suppose  that  a  certain  being,  may  send  a  messenger  on 
an  errand  to  transact  a  particular  business,  and  yet  be 
that  very  messenger,  who  is  sent;"  or  that  God  and 
the  Angel  of  God  are  the  same.  However  great  is 
this  absurdity,  we  are  not  answerable  for  it;  for  we 
neither  invented,  embraced,  nor  shall  we  attempt  to 
defend  it.  But  when  we  find  in  the  inspired  writings, 
that  the  Angel  of  God  assumes  the  highest  of  divine 
titles,  that  he  performs  divine  works,  and  that  divine 


CHRIST  THE  ANGEL  OP  THE  COVENANT.      209 

honors  are  given  to  him,  we  infer  that  there  is  a 
ground  of  distinction  in  the  divine  nature,  on  which  a 
reciprocal  relationship  subsists;  covenant  engagements 
are  ratified;  different  offices  are  sustained;  and  differ- 
ent works  are  performed.  This  distinction  was  per- 
ceived by  the  ancient  Jews;  but  it  was  more  clearly 
seen  under  the  Gospel. 

"Philo  makes  all  the  appearances,  which  we  meet 
with  in   the   books  of  Moses,  to  belong  to  the  Word; 
and  the  latter  Cabalists,  since  Christ's  time,  not  only 
do  the  same,  but  deny  that  the  Father  ever  appeared, 
saying,  it  was  the  hoyoa  only  that  manifested  himself 
to  their  fathers,  whose  proper  name  is  Elohim.     He 
(Philo)  expressly  affirms  of  the  Angel,  that  delivered 
Jacob  from  all  evil,  that  he  was  the  Aoyocr.     And  so 
does  Onkelos  in  his  Chaldee   paraphrase,   translating 
the  words  of  Jacob,  simply  as  they  lie  in  the  text,  with- 
out any  addition."     The    Jews    after  Christ's   time 
retained  the  same  sentiment.     (See    Allix  judgment 
of  the    ancient  Jewish    Church.)     When    Abraham 
received  the   promise  that  his  seed  should  be  as  the 
stars  of  heaven,  it  was  the    word  of  the  Lord,  that 
came  unto  him,  and  made  him  this  promise,  Gen.  15. 
As  the  promise  which  the  word  of  the  Lord  made  to 
Abraham  is  similar  to  that,  which  the  Angel   of  the 
Lord  made  to  Hagar,  it  is  probable  that  the  Word 
and  the  Angel  are  the  same.     It  is  evident  that  the 
Word   was  an  agent,  because  he  came  to  Abraham, 
spake   to   him;  told  him  that  he  was  his  shield,  his 
exceeding  great  reward.     But  if  the  word  of  the  Lord 
meant  no  more  than  his  declarations  and  commands, 
it  seems  improper  to  represent  it  in  this  manner. 

Besides  the  appearance  of  the  Angel,  who  is  called 
Jehovah,  who  did  what  divine  power  only  could  do; 
and  received,  without  prohibition,  divine  honors,  there 
is  recorded  in  the  Scriptures,  the  appearance  of  many 
angels.  Two  angels  appeared  unto  Lot,  in  Sodom, 
and  brought  him  out  of  that  corrupt  place.  But  they 
did  not  call  themselves  by  divine  names;  they  did  not 
perform  divine  works;  nor  did  they  receive  divine 
27 


210  CHRIST    THE    ANGEL    OF    THE    COVENANT. 

honors.  An  angel  of  the  Lord  appeared  to  Manoah 
and  his  wife;  and  assured  them  that  they  should  have 
a  son,  who  should  be  a  Nazarite  unto  God.  But  he 
refused  to  accept  an  offering  at  their  hands;  and  told 
thern  expressly,  that  if  they  would  ojETer  a  burnt  offer- 
ing, they  must  offer  it  unto  the  Lord.  This  implied 
that  he  was  not  the  Lord.  David  saw  an  angel  with 
his  hand  stretched  out  over  Jerusalem  to  destroy  it. 
But  the  Lord  stayed  his  hand.  This  angel  bore  no 
marks  of  divinity.  David  did  not  sacrifice  to  him,  but 
to  the  Lord.  It  is  recorded  in  the  Scriptures  that  an 
angel  appeared  to  Joseph  and  to  Mary,  and  made 
known  to  them  important  things  concerning  the  child 
Jesus.  Angels  ministered  unto  Christ,  when  he  was 
upon  earth.  Two  angels  were  seen  in  his  tomb  after 
he  had  risen  from  the  dead. 

But  there  are  visible  marks  of  distinction,  between 
the  appearance  of  these  angels  and  the  appearance  of 
that  Angel,  who  redeemed  Israel.  The  latter  gave 
evidence  that  he  was  God,  while  the  former  gave 
equal  evidence  that  they  were  created  beings.  Be- 
cause God  employs  angels  as  ministering  servants  in 
the  affairs  of  this  lower  world,  it  does  not  follow  that 
the  Angel  of  the  covenant  belongs  to  that  class  of 
beings.  Because  they  are  both  called  by  the  name 
angel,  to  denote  that  they  are  sent,  it  does  not  follow, 
that  they  possess  the  same  nature;  do  the  same  works; 
or  are  entitled  to  the  same  honors.  Each  will  be 
viewed  and  esteemed  according  to  their  distinguishing 
traits  of  character. 

In  the  New  Testament  God  is  more  clearly  revealed; 
a  distinction  in  the  divine  nature  is  more  clearly  mark- 
ed out,  and  he,  who  under  the  Jewish  dispensation, 
occasionally  assumed  a  human  appearance,  under  the 
Gospel  dispensation,  actually  took  human  nature  into 
union  with  his  own.  We  find  so  exact  correspondence 
between  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Angel  of  the  covenant, 
who  redeemed  Israel,  that  we  infer  that  they  are  one 
and  the  same.     It  was  prophesied  by  Malachi,  "Be- 


CHRIST    THE    ANftEL    OF    THE    COVENANT.  211 

hold  I  will  send  my  messenger,  and  he  shall  prepare 
the  way  before  me;  and  the  Lord,  whom  ye  seek, 
shall  suddenly  come  to  his  temple,  even  the  messenger 
(or  Angel)  of  the  covenant,  whom  ye  delight  in," 
Mai.  3:1.  The  Evangelists  fipply  this  prophecy  to 
Christ  and  to  his  precursor.  St.  Mark,  speaking  of 
the  Son  of  God,  says,  "As  it  is  written  in  the  prophets, 
behold  I  send  my  messenger  before  thy  face,  which 
shall  pj-epare  thy  way  before  thee."  He  then  adds 
a  prophecy  from  Isaiah.  "The  voice  of  one  crying  in 
the  wilderness,  prepare  ye  the  way  of  the  Lord,  make 
his  paths  straight."  The  prophet  Malachi  foretels 
that  a  messenger  would  be  sent  before  the  Lord;  and 
the  Lord  he  represents  to  be  even  the  Angel  of  the 
covenant.  The  Evangelists  apply  this  prediction  of 
the  messenger  to  John  the  baptist;  and  the  prediction 
of  the  Angel  of  the  covenant  to  Jesus  Christ.  The 
conclusion  then  is,  that  the  Angel  and  Christ  are  one 
and  the  same. 

When  God  promised  to  send  the  Angel  before 
Israel,  he  said,  my  name  is  in  him.  Christ  speaks  of 
himself  to  the  same  effect.  "Believest  thou  not  that 
I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me?  The  words 
that  I  speak  unto  you,  I  speak  not  of  myself;  but  the- 
Father  that  dwelleth  in  me<  he  doeth  the  works.  Be- 
lieve me,  that  I  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in 
in  me,"  John  14:10,11.  Of  the  Angel  it  was  implied 
that  he  could  forgive  sin.  Christ  actually  exercised 
this  power  and  authority.  The  apostle  Paul  expresses 
the  same  sentiment,  "God  was  in  Christ,"  2  Cor.  5:19. 
The  name  Emmanuel,  signifying  God  with  us,  which 
was  given  to  the  holy  Child  of  Mary,  implied  (hat 
God  was  \n  him.  These  texts  clearly  evince  that  the 
union  of  God  with  Christ  is  similar  to  the  union  of 
God  with  the  Angel;  and  such  a  union  between  God 
and  any  other  being,  is  not  exhibited  in  the  sacred 
scriptures.  There  is  strong  evidence  therefore,  that 
the  Angel  and  Christ  are  the  same. 


212     CHRIST  THE  ANGEL  OF  THE  COVENANT. 

The  apostle  Paul,  speaking  of  the  privileges  and 
of  the  sins  of  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness,  says, 
"Neither  let  us  tempt  Christ,  as  some  of  them  also 
tempted,  and  were  destroyed  of  serpents,"  I  Cor. 
10:9. 

The  apostle  alludes  to  the  Israelites,  when  "they 
journeyed  from  mount  Hor,  by  the  way  of  the  Red 
Sea,  to  compass  the  land  of  Edom;  and  the  soul  of 
the  people  was  much  discouraged  because  of  the  way; 
and  the  people  spake  against  God,  and  against  Moses, 
Wherefore  have  ye  brought  us^up  out  of  Egypt  to  die 
in  the  wilderness?  for  there  is  no  bread,  neither  is 
there  any  water,"  Numb.  21:4,5.  The  God,  against 
vphom  they  spake,  was  he,  who  brought  them  up  out 
of  Egypt;  but  it  was  the  Angel,  who  led  them  from 
Egypt  and  guided  them  in  the  wilderness;  it  was  the 
Angel  then,  whom  they  tempted.  But  the  apostle 
Paul  gives  us  to  understand  that  it  was  Christ,  whom 
they  tempted.     Therefore  the  Angel  was  Christ. 

It  was  the  opinion  of  the  ancient  Jews,  that  the 
Angel,  who  was  called  Jehovah,  and  led  and  redeemed 
Israel,  was  not  a  created  Angel,  who  personated  God. 
They  believed  generally  that  he  was  the  Word.  Philo 
is  explicit  on  this  point.  "In  general,  he  asserts  that 
it  was  the  Word  that  appeared  to  Adam,  Jacob  and 
Moses;  although  in  the  books  of  Moses,  it  is  only  an 
Angel  that  is  spoken  of.  It  was  the  Word,  that  ap- 
peared to  Abraham,  (Gen.  18:1,)  according  to  Philo; 
for  he  saith,  it  was  the  Word,  that  promised  Sarah  a 
son  in  her  old  age,  and  that  enabled  her  to  conceive 
and  bring  forth.  It  was  the  Word,  that  appeared  to 
Abraham  as  an  Angel,  and  that  called  to  him  not  to 
hurt  his  son,  when  he  was  about  to  sacrifice  him.  It 
was  the  Word  that  appeared  to  Hagar.  It  was  the 
Word  that  appeared  so  many  times  to  Jacob,  although 
he  be  called  the  Angel  that  delivered  him  out  of  all 
his  trouble.  It  was  the  image  of  God,  which  in  other 
places  is  the  same  with  the  Word,  that  appeared  to 
Moses  in  the  bush.     It  was  God  that  called  to  him 


CHRIST  THE  ANGEL  OF  THE  COVENANT.     213 

at  the  same  time,  even  the  Word,  whom  Moses  de- 
sired to  see.  It  was  the  Word,  who  led  Israel  through 
the  wilderness,  Exod.  33:  He  was  the  Angel,  in  whom 
God  placed  his  name.  This  Angel  was  he,  that  ap- 
peared to  Moses,  and  the  elders  of  Israel  on  mount 
Sinai,  Exod.  24:  It  was  the  Word,  whom  those  Jews 
rejected  that  said,  "let  us  make  a  captain  and  return 
into  Egypt,"  Numb.  14:4. 

The  appearances  of  the  Angel  recorded  in  the  Old 
Testament,  were  frequently  in  the  form  of  a  man. 
Once  he  appeared  in  a  burning  bush;  once  on  Sinai  in 
fire  and  smoke;  at  other  times  in  a  pillar  of  cloud. 
These  were  similitudes,  (Numb.  12:8,)  or  vehicles  in 
which  the  Angel  appeared.  But  the  Israelites  did 
not  see  the  Angel  himself.  He  was  a  Spirit,  and  of 
course,  he  was  not  visible.  "No  man  hath  seen  God 
at  any  time.  He  dwelleth  in  the  light  which  no  man 
can  approach  unto;  whom  no  man  hath  seen,  nor  can 
see,  the  only  begotten  Son,  which  is  in  the  bosom  of 
the  Father,  he  hath  declared  him."  It  appears,  that 
ever  since  the  apostasy,  God  the  Father  has  holden 
intercourse  with  this  world,  through  a  Mediator. 
"There  is  one  God,  and  one  Mediator,  between  God 
and  men,  the  man,  Chfist  Jesus,"  I  Tim.  2:5. 

Christ  officiated  as  Mediator  between  God  and  man, 
before  his  incarnation.  He  spoke  to  our  first  parents 
in  Eden,  after  they  had  rebelled;  and  began  to  unfold 
the  second,  or  the  new  covenant,  the  covenant  of 
grace.  He  often  spoke  to  the  fathers;  and  commu- 
nicated to  them  the  divine  will.  He  was  the  Angel 
of  the  covenant;  the  Angel,  who  communicated  to 
this  world  the  covenant  of  grace.  "His  goings  forth 
have  been  from  of  old;  from  everlasting,"  Mic.  5:2. 

Christ  has  employed  agents,  or  subordinate  media- 
tors between  himself  and  this  fallen  world.  Moses 
was  a  mediator  between  the  Angel  and  Israel.  The 
priests,  who  officiated  at  the  altar  were  mediators 
between  the  Lord  and  the  people.  But  the  prime 
Mediator,  the  Mediator  of  the  covenant,  is  the  Son  of 


214     CHRIST  THE  ANGEL  OF  THE  COVENANT. 

God.     It  was  through  his  mediation  the  saints  before 
the  incarnation  inherited  the  promises.  They  beHeved 
in  a  Savior  to  come,  who  would  make  an  offering  for 
sin  once  for  all;  and  this  faith  was  accounted  to  them 
for  righteousness.     It   was   in  view,  and   by  virtue  of 
that  sacrifice,  which  he  was  to  make,  that  he    made 
uitercesslon  for  them,  and  saved  them  from  their  sins. 
"No  man  knoweth  who  the  Son  is,  but  the  Father; 
and  who  the  Father  is,  but  the  Son,  and  he  to  whom 
the  Son  will  reveal  him,"  Luke  10:22.  This  text,  while 
it  conveys  an  idea  that  the  nature  of  the  Son  is  no  less 
unsearchable  by  finite  intelligence,  than  the  nature  of 
the  Father,  confirms  the  sentiment  that  it  is  the  Son, 
who,  from  the  beginning,  hath  revealed    the    Father. 
He  was  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  and  the   Father 
was    in  him.     He  was  perfectly  acquainted  with  his 
nature,    and   with  his  counsels.      He  was,  of  course, 
perfectly  qualified  to  declare,  or  manifest  him   to  the 
world.     Under   the  former  dispensation,   his   revela- 
tions of  the  divine  nature   and  will,  were  often   seen 
through  shadows  and  similitudes.      He  gradually   dis- 
closed the  perfections  and  will  of  the  Deity.   By  types 
and  symbols  he  prefigured  important  realities.     When 
the  fulness  of  the  time  was  cotue,  he  appeared  in  the 
world  agreeably  to  ancient  predictions  and  represen- 
tations.   He  more  clearly  manifested  the  divine  nature. 
The  Deity,  who  was   often  exhibited  in   plurality  in 
the  Old  Testament,   he  revealed   with   these  specific 
distinctions,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost. 
The  Angel,  who  delivered  Israel  from  temporal  evils, 
and  led  him  to  an  earthly  inheritance,  appears  in  the 
New  Testament  a  Savior  from  sin,  not  a  Savior  of  the 
Jews  only,  but  also  of  the  Gentiles.     The  Spirit,  who 
wasrepresented,  just  after  the  creation,  hovering  over 
the  waters  to  impregnate  them  with  animal  life;  and 
to  impress  form  upon  chaos,  appears  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, giving    spiritual    life  to    human    nature,  and 
restoring  order  in  the  moral  world.  In  the  Old  Testa- 
ment God  is  represented,  in  the  relationship  of  Creator, 


CHRIST    THE    ANGEL    OF    THE    COVENANT:  215 

as  the  Father  of  the  whole  human  race.  In  the  New 
Testanjoiit  he  is  represented  as  the  Father  of  a 
spiritual  seed;  of  obedient  affectionate  cliildren.  In 
the  Old  Testament  he  is  exhibited  in  plurality  creat- 
ing the  world.  In  the  New,  he  is  represented  with  the 
peculiar  distinctions  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit. 
The  same  Savior,  the  same  Sanctifier  were  revealed 
under  the  former,  which  were  revealed  under  the  lat- 
ter dispensation,  but  with  less  distinctness. 

There  is  an  intimate  union  between  God  and  be- 
lievers. John,  in  his  first  Epistle,  says,  "If  we  love 
one  another,  God  dwelletk  in  us.  Hereby  know  we 
that  we  dwell  in  him,  and  he  in  us,  because  he  hath 
given  us  of  his  Spirit.  Whosoever  shall  confess  that 
Jesus  is  the  Son  of  God,  God  dwelleth  in  him  and  he 
in  God."  This  union  between  God  and  believers  is 
manifestly  different  from  the  union,  which  subsists  be- 
tween God  and  the  Angel,  or  between  the  Father 
and  the  Son.  The  Angel,  in  whom  was  the  name  of 
Jehovah  was  called  by  the  highest  of  divine  names; 
he  performed  divine  works;  and  he  received  divine 
honors.  There  is  no  intimation  that  he  was  depend- 
ent. Jesus  Christ  declares  his  union  with  the  Father; 
and  for  a  confirmation  (5f  his  declaration  he  appeals  to 
his  works.  "  What  things  soever  the  Father  doethy  these 
also  doeth  the  Son  likewise.  If  I  do  not  the  works  of 
my  Father,  believe  me  not.  But  if  I  do,  though  ye 
belijeve  not  me,  believe  the  works."  From  the  union, 
which  subsists  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  the 
same  works  are  attributed  indiscriminately  to  each; 
and  peo[)le  are  required  to  honor  the  Son  even  as 
they  honor  the  Father.  But  these  consequences  do 
not  accrue  to  believers  by  reason  of  their  union  with 
God.  Their  union  then  is  of  a  different  kind;  and 
forms  no  argument  against  that  higher  and  more  inti- 
mate union,  which  subsists  between  the  Father  and 
the  Son. 

Those  who  disbelieve  that  the  Angel  of  the  cove- 
nant was  the  Son  of  God,  are  not  agreed  in  their  opin- 


216     CHRIST  THE  ANGEL  OF  THE  COVENANT.- 

ions  respecting  him.  Some  suppose  that  he  was  a 
created  angel;  and  personated  Jehovah.  If  this  be 
correct,  it  is  hard  to  draw  a  line  of  distinction  between 
the  creator  and  a  creature. 

Others  are  of  opinion  that  the  Angel  of  God  and 
Jehovah  are  equivalent.  "Jehovah,  the  Angel  of 
God,  the  God  of  Bethel,  God  almighty;  the  redeem- 
ing Angel,  are  all  but  different  names  and  descriptions 
of  Jehovah  the  one  true  God.  (See  Lindsey.)  "It 
should  seem,  therefore,  that  in  Scripture  language, 
when  describing  the  divine  appearances,  the  Angel  of 
the  Lord  appeared,  and  Jehovah  appeared,  are  equiv- 
alent expressions."  (Lowman's  Tracts,  p.  99.)  We 
are  ready  to  admit  the  judgment  of  these  learned  au- 
thors as  to  the  equivalence  of  these  names.  We  are 
ready,  also  to  admit  the  judgment  of  other  learned 
authors  of  the  same  class,  who  believe  that  the  An- 
gel and  he  who  sent  him  are  not,  in  all  respects,  the 
same.  From  both  we  infer,  as  we  apprehend,  the 
whole  truth;  that  the  Angel  is  equivalent  to  Jehovah, 
and  that  there  is  such  a  distinction  between  them,  that 
they  are  not  in  every  respect  the  same. 

The  apostle  to  the  Hebrews  contrasts  the  Mosaic, 
with  the  Gospel  dispensation,  and  gives  a  superiority 
to  the  latter.  "Therefore  we  ought  to  give  the  more 
earnest  heed  to  the  things,  which  we  have  heard,  lest 
at  any  time  we  should  let  them  slip.  For  if  the  word 
spoken  by  angels  was  steadfast,  and  every  transgres- 
sion and  disobedience  received  a  just  recompense  of 
reward;  how  shall  we  escape  if  we  neglect  so  great 
salvation,  which,  at  first,  began  to  be  spoken  by  the 
Lord;  and  was  confirmed  unto  us  by  them  that  heard 
him,"  Heb.  2:1,2,3.  The  apostle  attributes  greater 
excellence,  and  requires  a  more  earnest  heed  to  the 
Gospel,  than  to  the  law  of  Moses,  because  the  Gospel 
was  spoken  immediately  by  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  offer- 
ed so  great  salvation;  whereas  the  law  was  spoken 
by  angels;  and  under  that  dispensation,  "every  trans- 
gression and  disobedience  received  a  just  recompense 


CHRIST    THE    ANGEL    OF    THE    COVENANT.  217 

of  reward."  The  prime  Comtnunicator  of  the  law, 
communicated  the  Gospel.  It  was  the  Angel,  who 
spake  to  Moses  in  the  mount  Sinai  and  with  our  fathers, 
who  received  the  lively  oracles  to  give  unto  us.  This 
Angel  called  himself,  I  AM.  This  Angel  was  with 
the  Church  in  the  wilderness  and  was  tempted.  The 
apostle  informs  us  that  this  Angel,  who  was  tempted 
in  the  wilderness,  was  Christ.  If  he  who  gave  the 
law,  and  he  who  gave  the  gospel,  are  one  and  the 
same,  it  is  inquired,  why  has  the  Gospel,  on  this  ground, 
a  preference  to  the  law,  and  what  is  the  force  of  St. 
Paul's  reasoning.  It  is  readily  admitted  that  angels 
accompanied  the  Son  of  God  on  mount  Sinai,  and  were 
subordinate  agents  in  promulgating  the  law.  The 
commandments  which  were  given  from  Sinai,  and  all 
the  revelations  which  were  made  under  the  Jewish 
economy,  were  of  the  same  divine  authority  as  the 
Gospel.  But  the  circumstances  were  different.  The 
former  were  communicated  mediately^  the  latter  was 
communicated  immediately  by  the  Son  of  God.  Under 
the  former  dispensation  he  revealed  the  will  of  the 
Father  through  the  medium  of  prophets.  Under 
the  latter  dispensation  he  revealed  his  will  personally. 
If  that  dispensation,  which  was  communicated  by  God 
through  intermediate  hands,  and  whose  most  promi- 
nent retribution  was  of  a  temporal  nature,  demanded 
attention,  more  earnest  attention  does  that  dispensa- 
tion demand,  which  was  communicated  immediately  by 
the  Lord  himself,  and  whose  rewards  and  punishments 
are  of  a  spiritual  nature,  and  of  eternal  duration.* 

*  "Grotius  remarks,  that  the  Angel,  spoken  of  in  the  last  text,  (Mai.  3:1.) 
•was  allowed  even  by  the  Jewish  Rabbins  to  be  Jehovah,  and  copies  from  Masius 
a  striking  passage  to  this  purpose,  out  of  the  comment  of  R.  Moses,  the  son  of 
Nehenien,  upon  the  5lh  chapter  of  Joshua.  Isie  Angelus,  &c.  i.  e.  "Thai  An- 
gel, to  say  the  truth,  is  the  Anijel  Redeemer,  of  whom  it  is  written,  for  luy  name 
is  in  him.  He  v/:\i^  the  Anc;el,  wiio  said  to  Jacob,  I  am  the  God  of  Bethel;  and  of 
■whom  it  is  said,  God  culled  to  vloses  out  of  the  midst  of  the  bush.  He  was  call- 
ed an  A;igel  because  he  governs  the  •world;  for  it  is  written,  Jthovah  (i-  e.  the 
Lord  God,)brought  us  out  of  Egypt.  It  is  moreover  written,  the  Angel  of  his 
presence  saved  them.  And,  without  doubt,  the  Angel  of  God's  presence  was  he, 
of  whom  it  is  said.  My  presence  shall  go  before  thee,  anil  1  will  give  tht.e  rest.  In 
a  word,  He  is  the  Angel,  of  v/hom  the  prophet  spake.  The  Lord  whom  ye  seek, 
shall  suddenly  come  to  his  temple,  even  the  Angel  of  the  Covenant,  whom  ye 
delight  in.  The  face,  or  presence  of  God  signifies  God  himself,  which  is  confess* 
ediy  allowed  by  all  interpreters."     (HorK  Solitariaj.) 

28 


THE    OPINIONS    OF    THE    ANCIENT    JEWS, 
RESPECTING   THE  SON  OF  GOD. 


It  is  of  rt-o  inconsiderable  consequence  to  ascertain  the 
opinion  of  the  Jews,  before  and  after  Christ's  incar- 
nation, respecting  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  They 
formed  their  opinion  of  the  divine  nature  from  the 
writings  of  the  Old  Testament.  As  they  were  per- 
fectly acquainted  with  the  idiom  of  their  own  lan- 
guage, they  were  well  qualified  to  determine  the 
meaning  of  their  own  Scriptures.  It  appears  that 
the  plural  name  of  God,  which  is  so  often  used  in  the 
Old  Testament,  naturally  conveys  an  idea  of  some 
kind  of  plurality  in  the  divine  nature.  The  plural 
names,  given  to  the  idols  of  the  heathen,  form  no 
valid  objection  to  this  hypothesis,  when  it  is  consider- 
ed there  were  many  of  the  same  name. 

The  writings  of  Philo  the  Jew,  are  very  full  and 
explicit  on  the  divine  nature.  That  he  wrote  some 
time  before  the  birth  of  Christ  has  been  clearly  prov- 
ed by  a  divine  of  the  church  of  England,  in  a  treatise 
entitled,  "The  Judgment  of  the  Ancient  Jewish  Church 
against  the  Unitarians."  In  producing  testimonies  in 
favor  of  the  Trinity,  or  of  the  Divinity  of  Christ, 
from  the  writings  of  this  celebrated  Jew,  we  shall 
quote  them  as  they  are  found  quoted  in  this  English 
author. 


OPINIONS    OF    THE    ANCIENT    JEWS,  «fec.  219 

Philo,*  in  several  places  of  his  writings  observes, 
"That  Moses,  the  law-giver  of  the  Jews,  made  this 
his  chief  end  to  destroy  the  notion  of  polytheism." 
He  then  affirms,  "that  though  it  is  said,  God  is  one, yet 
this  is  not  to  be  understood  with  respect  to  number." 
Though  this  expression  is  obscure,  there  is  no  doubt 
that  he  had  an^itlea  of  purality  in  unity.  He  says, 
"God  begets  his  Word,  and  his  Wisdom,  and  that  his 
Wisdom  is  the  same  with  his  Word;  that  this  genera- 
tion was  from  all  eternity;  for  the  Word  of  God  is  the 
eternal  Son  of  God."  Philo  speaks  of  two  powers  in 
God;  that  these  powers  made  the  world,  or  by  them 
God  created  the  world;  that  these  eternal  powers  ap- 
peared, acted,  and  spoke  as  real  persons;  and  in  a  vis- 
ible and  sensible  manner." 

"It  is  clear  how  sensible  the  Jews  have  been  that 
there  is  a  notion  of  plurality  plainly  imported  in  the 
Hebrew  ie\\,  since  they  have  forbidden  their  common 
people  the  reading  of  the  history  of  the  creation,  lest 
understanding  it  literally,  it  should  lead  them  into  here- 
sy. The  Talmudists  have  invented  this  excuse  for 
the  Seventy,  as  to  their  changing  the  Hebrew  plural, 
into  a  Greek  singular;  they  say  it  was  for  fear  Ptol. 
Phil,  should  take  the  Jews  for  polytheists."  St.  Je- 
rome observes  the  same. 

Since  the  time  of  Christ  the  Jews  have  retained 
the  opinion  that  there  is  a  plurality  in  the  divine 
nature.  "Both  the  authors  of  the  Midrashim  and  the 
Cabalistical  authors  agree  exactly  in  this,  that  they 
acknowledge  a  plurality  in  the  divine  essence;  and 
that  they  reduce  such  a  plurality  to  three  persons  as 
we  do.  To  prove  such  an  assertion,  I  take  notice 
first,  that  the  Jews  do  judge  as  we  do,  that  the  word 
Elohim,  which  is  plural,  expresses  a  plurality.  Their 
ordinary  remark  upon  that  word  is   this,  that  Elohim 

•  The  following  quotations  fi-om  ancient  Jewish  authors  are  not  made  vith  a 
view  to  subscribe  to  all  their  opinions,  but  simply  to  shew  that  they  believed 
there  was  a  plurality  in  the  divine  Nature;  that  tiie  promised  Messiah  was  the 
Son  of  God;  and  that  he  was  divine. 


220  OPINIONS    OF    THE    ANCIENT    JEWS 

is  as  if  one  did  read  El  hem^  that  is,  they  are  God. 
Bachaje,  a  famous  Commentator  of  the  Pentateuch, 
who  brin2;s  in  his  work  all  the  senses  of  the  four  sorts 
of  interpreters  among  the  Jews,  speaks  to  this  pur- 
pose upon  the  Parascha  Breschit.  fol.  2.  col.  3."  Allix. 
p.  160. 

"The  author  of  Zohar  is  a  voucher  of  great  au- 
thority; and  he  cites  these  words  of  R.  Jose,  (a  fa- 
mous Jew  of  the  second  century,)  when  examining 
the  text,  Deut.  4:7,  Who  have  their  gods  so  near  to 
them?  What,  saith  he,  may  be  the  meaning  of  this.f^ 
It  seems  as  if  Moses  should  have  said,  Who  have  God  so 
near  them?  But  saith  he,  there  is  a  superior  God,  and 
there  is  the  God,  who  was  the  fear  of  Isaac,  and  there 
is  an  inferior  God;  and  therefore  Moses  saith,  the  Gods 
so  near.  For  there  are  many  virtues,  that  come  from 
the  only  One,  and  all  they  are   one." 

"See  how  the  same  author  supposes  that  there  are 
three  degrees  in  the  Godhead,  in  Levit.  col.  116. 
Come  and  see  the  mystery  in  the  word  Elohim,  viz. 
there  are  three  degrees,  and  every  degree  is  distinct 
by  himself;  and  notwithstanding  they  are  all  One,  and 
tied  in  one,  and  one  is  not,  and  separated  from  the 
other.  Upon  the  words  of  Deut.  6:4,  "Hear,  O  Is- 
rael, the  Lord  our  God  is  one  Lord;"  they  must 
know  that  those  three  are  one." 

"You  have  this  remark  of  the  same  author  in  Gen. 
fol.  54,  col.  2.  de  litera,  \^  that  the  three  branches 
of  that  letter  denote  the  heavenly  Fathei^s,  who  are 
there  named  Jeliovah,  our  Lord,  Jehovah." 

"R.  Hay  Hagahon,  who  lived  seven  hundred  years 
ago,  said  there  are  three  lights  in  God;  ihe  ancient 
light,  or  Kadmon;  the  pure  light,  the  purified  light, 
and  that  these  make  but  one  God:  and  that  there  is 
neither  plurality  nor  polytheism  in  this.  The  same 
idea  is  followed  bv  R.  Shem  Tov." 

"If  you  would  know  their  (i.  e.  the  Cabalists) 
opinion,  to  whom  it  was  that  God  did  speak  at  the 
creation,  Gen.  1:26,  R.  Juda  will  tell  you  God  spoke 


RESPECTING    THE    SON    OF    GOD.  221 

to  his  Word.    If  you  would  know  of  ihem,  who  is  the 
Spirit  of  whom  we  read,  Gen.  1:2,  that  he  moved  on  the^ 
face  of  the  waters^  Moses  Botril  will  inform  you,  it   is 
the  Holy  Spirit." 

The  Chaldee  paraphrases  are  consonant  with  the 
opinion  of  Philo  respecting  the  divine  nature.  "They 
ascribe  the  creation  of  the  world  to  the  Word.  Tiiey 
make  it  the  Word  that  apjjeared  to  the  ancients  under 
the  name  of  the  Angel  of  the  Lord.  That  Abraham 
swore  by  the  Word.  The  Word  led  Israel  in  the  pil- 
lar of  a  cloud.  The  Word  spake  out  of  the  fire  at 
Horeb."  The  Jews  inferred  from  their  Scriptures 
that  the  promised  Messiah  Avas  the  Son  of  God.  "Philo 
in  his  pieces  hath  preserved  the  sense  of  the  ancient 
Jews  in  this  matter,  that  this  Son  was  the  Aoyo;,  as 
where  he  sailh,  that  the  Word,  by  whom  they  swear 
was  begotten;  that  God  begat  his  Wisdom  according 
to  Solomon,  Prov.  8:24,  which  Wisdom  is  no  other 
than  the  Aoyog;  that  the  Aoyo;  is  the  most  ancient 
Son;  the  eternal  Spirit  of  God;  that  his  Word  is  his 
image  and  his  first  born;  that  the  Word  is  the  Son  of 
God,  before  the  Angels;  that  the  unity  of  God  is  not 
to  be  reduced  to  number;  that  God  is  unus,  not  uni- 
cus." 

"Nothing  can  be  more  express  for  to  prove  that 
there  is  a  Son  in  the  Godhead,  than  what  we  read  in 
the  Targum  of  Jerusalem,  Gen.  3:22.  7\e  word  of 
Jehovah  said.^  here  Jldam,  whom  I  created^  is  the  only  be- 
gotten Son  in  the  world,  as  I  am  the  only  begotten  Son  in 
the  high  Heaven.''''  Pliilo  calls  the  Aoyo;  "the  first 
born  of  God,  the  eternal  Word  of  the  eternal  God, 
begotten  by  the  Father." 

"In  Isaiah  4:2,  the  Messias  is  called  the  Branch  of 
the  Lord,  no  doubt  as  properly  as  he  is  called  the 
branch  of  David,  Jer.  23:5.  "In  that  day,  saith  he,  the 
branch  of  the  Lord  shall  be  beautiful  and  glorious," 
which  is  in  Jonathan's  paraphrase  interpreted  of  the 
Messias.      From   which   it  is  natural  to  conclude  that 


222  OPINIONS    OF    THE    ANCIENT    JEWS 

the   proper  Son  of  God   was  to  be  the  Messias,  and 
the   Messlas  was  to  be  the  proper  Son  of  God." 

"The  Targum  on  Jer.  23:  acknowledges  the  Messias 
to  be  there  treated  of,  and  yet  he  is  called  in  this  place, 
the  Lord  of  our  righteousness.  See  to  the  same  pur- 
pose the  Targum  on  Jer.  33:14.  The  learned  M. 
Edzardi  has  proved  that  the  same  interpretation  of 
these  words  of  Jeremy,  hath  continued  among  the 
Jews  from  the  time  of  Jesus  Christ,  without  inter- 
ruption, till  these  latter  days;  and  this  he  hath  done 
from  a  great  number  of  Jewish  authors." 

"Philo  says  that  the  eternal  Word  appeared  to 
Abraham.  And  elsewhere  he  names  that  Angel  or 
Word,  Jehovah." 

"Philo  says  that  it  was  the  Word  which  appeared  to 
the  Jews  upon  mount  Sinai;  that  God  spoke  to  the 
Jews  when  he  gave  them  his  laws." 

"Philo  avows  that  the  Word  was  the  eternal  Son 
of  God.  He  calls  him  the  first  born  and  the  Creator 
of  the   world." 

St.  John  expresses  the  same  sentiment  at  the  com- 
mencement of  his  Gospel.  "In  the  beginning  was  the 
Word.  All  things  were  made  by  him  and  without 
him  was  not  any  thing  made  that  was  made."  He 
expresses  the  same  opinion  of  Christ,  which  the  Jews 
before  him  had  expressed. 

It  has  been  attempted  to  invalidate  the  authority 
of  Philo,  by  saying  that  he  learned  his  notions  of  the 
Trinity  from  Plato.  But  the  testimony  of  heathen 
will  remove  this  objection.  "The  very  heathen  au- 
thors own  that  Plato  borrowed  his  notions  from  Moses, 
as  Numenius,  who  (as  Theodoret  tells  us)  did  ac- 
knowledge that  Plato  had  learnt  in  Egypt  the  doctrine 
of  the  Hebrews,  during  his  stay  there  for  thirteen 
years;"  Theod.  Serm.  1. 

That  the  ancient  Jews  believed  in  a  plurality  in 
the  divine  nature,  and  in  the  Divinity  of  the  Mes- 
siah, is  supported  by  the  Chaldee  paraphrases. 
These   paraphrases    exhibit  the    Messias    or    Word, 


RESPECTING    THE    SON    OF    GOD.  223 

in  a  similar  manner  to  that,  which  the  writers 
of  the  New  Testament  exhibit  him.  The  Jerusalem 
Targum  on  Gen.  1:27,  says,  "The  Word  of  the  Lord 
created  man  in  his  own  image."  When  God  appeared 
to  our  first  parents  after  they  had  sinned,  it  is  said, 
"they  heard  the  voice  of  the  Lord  God  walking  in  the 
midst  of  the  garden."  Philo  says  that  it  was  the 
Word  of  the  Lord,  that  appeared  to  them.  "So  both 
Onkelos  and  Jonathan  have  it,  that  Adam  and  his  wife 
heard  the  voice  of  the  Word  of  the  Lord  God  walking 
in  the  garden."  The  Jerusalem  Targum  makes  use 
of  a  similar  mode  of  expression. 

"The  Angel  of  the  Lord  called  unto  Abraham  out 
of  heaven,  the  second  time;  and  said,  by  myself  have 
I  sworn,  saith  the  Lord,"  &c.  "There  both  Onkelos 
and  Jonathan  have  it.  By  my  Word  have  I  sworn,  saith 
the  Lord-''''  When  it  is  considered,  that  the  ancient 
Jews  believed  that  the  Word  was  God,  they  might 
with  propriety  say  that  God  swore  by  his  Word;  and 
with  equal  propriety  might  the  apostle  say,  that  God 
swore  by  himself.  Many  other  quotations  might  be 
made  from  the  Targums  of  similar  import  and  of  sim- 
ilar application. 

But  it  is  objected  that  there  is  no  weight  in  the 
argument  drawn  from  the  Targums,  because  the 
Hebrew  word  for  God,  is  often  translated  or  para- 
phrased in  the  Chaldee  language,  the  Word  of  the 
Lord;  that  this  is  the  idiom  of  that  language;  and  that 
it  signifies  neither  more  nor  less  than  God  himself. 
But  the  Chaldee  word  Mimra  is  sometimes  used  dif- 
ferently and  separately  by  the  paraphrasts.  "We 
read  in  Jonathan's  Targum,  that  Jacob  vowed  a  vow 
to  the  Word,  saying,  if  the  Word  of  the  Lord  will 
be  my  help,  &c.  then  shall  the  Lord  be  my  God."  In 
the  first  part  of  this  quotation,  the  term  Word,  or 
Mimra  is  used  by  itself;  and  it  is  used  as  synonymous 
with  Lord.  In  the  same  manner  does  St.  John  use  the 
word  AoyoQ. 


224  OPINIONS    OF    THE    ANCIENT    JEWS 

Onkelos  on  Exodus  29:42,  says,  "I  will  appoint  my 
Word  to  speak  with  thee  there,  and  I  will  appoint 
ray  Word  there  for  the  children  of  Israel."  Here 
the  paraphrast  makes  a  distinction  between  I  and 
Word;  a  distinction  not  unlike  that,  M-hich  Christians 
make  between  the  Father  and  the  Word.  When  it 
is  considered,  that  Philo  viewed  the  Aoyog  as  the 
promised  Messias,  it  is  highly  probable  that  his  He- 
brew brethren  had  the  same  idea  of  it  when  they 
wrote  their  Targums,  notwitiistandiijg  all  that  Pri- 
deaux,  Louis  Capellus,  and  father  Simon  have  said 
about  the  peculiar  idiom  of  the  Chaldee  langurige. 

Onkelos  and  Jonathan  on  Num.  22:9,  paraphrase 
thus,  "The  Word  came  from  before  the  Lord,  and 
said."  The  objection  drawn  from  the  idiom  of  the 
Chaldee  language  will  not  apply  to  this  phraseology. 
The  manner  of  expression  denotes  a  distinction  be- 
tween the  Word  and  the  Lord;  and  as  the  critics 
upon  the  idiom  of  the  Targums  acknowledge  that  the 
Word  is  synonymous  with  Lord,  we  have  all  we  con- 
tend for  For  a  further  view  of  this  subject,  see 
Allix  Judgment  of  the  Ancient  Jewish  Church  against 
the  Unitarians. 

The  quotations,  which  have  just  been  made  from 
ancient  Jewish  authors  are  extracted  from  the  works 
of  Allix.  "And  what  advantage  do  we  derive  from 
the  labors  of  others,  if  we  can  never  confide  in  them, 
and  occasionally  save  ourselves  some  trouble  by  their 
means?"* 

The  Messiah  was  revealed  to  the  Jews  by  the 
name  Son.  When  God  speaks  of  him  by  that  name, 
he  calls  him  my  Son.  In  the  2d  Psalm,  God  is  intro- 
duced addressing  a  certain  personage,  "Thou  art  my 
Son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee."  Then  he  com- 
mands, saying,  "Kiss  the  Son,  lest  he"  be  argry."  It 
is  generally,  if  not  universally,  admitted  that  this  Psalm, 
or  at  least,  so  much  of  it  as  describes  the  Son,  is  ap- 

*  Priestlev. 


RESPECTING    THE    SON    OF    GOD.  225 

/ 

plied  to  the  Messiah.  If  there  were  any  doubt  on 
this  point,  the  apostle  to  the  Hebrews  can  remove 
the  difficulty;  for  he  quotes  this  passage  in  relation  to 
Jesus  Christ.  In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  it  is  quoted 
in  the  same  connexion:  "I  will  be  his  Father  and  he 
shall  be  my  Son."  If  this  prophecy  had'a  primary  ref- 
erence to  Solomon,  its  ultimate  reference  was  to  Christ; 
for   the  apostle   Paul   quotes  it   with   this  reference. 

The  prophet  Isaiah,  speaking  of  the  Messiah,  saith, 
"Unto  us  a  Son  is  given."  God,  by  the  prophet  Hosea, 
saith,  "When  Israel  was  a  child,  then  I  loved  him,  and 
called  my  Son  out  of  Egypt."  The  prophecy,  con- 
tained in  the  latter  part  of  this  text  undoubtedly  relates 
to  Christ;  for  St.  Matthew  quotes  it  in  relation  to  him, 
and  as  fulfilled  in  him. 

We  learn  in  the  New  Testament,  what  opinion  of 
the  Messiah  the  Jews  had  formed  from  these  charac- 
teristic descriptions.  Jesus  repeatedly  called  God  his 
Father.  He  therefore  implicitly  called  himself  his 
Son.  Many  times  he  expressly  called  himself  his  Son, 
his  only  begotten  Son.  On  a  certain  occasion  Jesus 
called  God  his  Father  in  the  hearing  of  the  Jews. 
They  were  offended;  because  they  understood  him 
by  this  expression  and  by  claiming  this  title,  to  make 
himself  equal  with  God.  (ftrov  tcjT  0fw)  The  word 
JVov  literally  signifies  equal;  and  it  is  in  vain  to  attempt 
to  reduce  it  below  this  signification.  In  other  places 
it  is  translated,  and  it  is  correctly  translated  equal. 
St.  John,  describing  the  city  Jerusalem,  says,  "The 
length,  and  the  breadth,  and  the  height  of  it  are  (/Va) 
equal.  There  can  be  no  doubt  respecting  the  correct- 
ness of  the  translation  of  the  word  in  this  passage. 

But  if  this  word  were  of  doubtful  signification,  what 
the  Jews  said  to  Christ  on  another  occasion  exhibits 
in  a  clear  light  their  opinion  of  the  name,  Son  of  God. 
Jesus  said,  "I  and  my  Father  are  one."  The  Jews 
accused  him  of  blasphemy  because  that  he  being  a  man 
made  himself  God.  It  appears  that  they  had  formed 
their  opinion  from  the  prophets  that  the  Messias  was 
29 


226  OPINIONS    OF   THE   ANCIENT   JEWS. 

the  Son  of  God;  and  by  their  answers  to  Jesus,  it  ap- 
pears that  they  considered  the  Son  of  God  to  be,  or 
to  be  equal  to,  God.  Had  they  behoved  that  Jesus 
was  their  expected  Messias,  they  would  not  have 
accused  him  of  blasphemy  because  he  called  God  his 
Father.  During  the  short  time  that  they  believed 
that  he  was  the  Messias,  no  honors  were  too  great  to 
be  bestowed  upon  him.  But  when  they  found  that 
he  did  not  grant  them  that  deliverance  which  they 
expected,  their  opinion  changed.  They  viewed  him 
as  a  mere  man;  and  of  course,  a  blasphemer,  because 
he  pretended  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  Adam,  Israel, 
believers,  and  angels  are  called  sons  of  God.  The 
Jews  understood  Christ,  claiming  a  higher  relationship 
to  God  than  these;  a  relationship,  which  implied 
divinity.  In  answer  to  the  accusing  Jews,  Christ  vindi- 
cated himself  against  the  charge  of  blasphemy  upon 
their  own  principles,  and  agreeably  to  their  own 
Scriptures.  If  they  might  be  called  gods,  to  whom 
the  word  of  God  came,  he  inferred  that  he  himself, 
whom  the  Father  had  sanctified  and  sent  into  the 
world,  might,  without  blasphemy,  be  called  the  Son 
of  God.  But  he  referred  them  to  his  works  for  proof 
of  his  union  with  the  Father. 

When  Christ  was  on  trial  before  the  council,  the 
high  priest  adjured  him  by  the  living  God,  that  he 
should  tell  them  whether  he  was  the  Christ,  the  Son 
of  God.  This  demand  implied  that  the  high  priest 
believed  that  the  promised  Christ  was  the  Son  of  God. 
His  question  was,  whether  Jesus  was  this  personage. 
When  he  answered  in  the  affirmative;  and  told  him 
that  he  should  see  the  Son  of  man  sitting  on  the  right 
hand  of  power,  and  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven, 
the  high  priest  accused  him  of  blasphemy.  This  rep- 
resentation clearly  implies  that  the  high  priest  believ- 
ed that  the  promised  Messiah  was  the  Son  of  God; 
that  the  Son  of  God  was  divine;  that  Jesus  was  blas- 
phemous for  pretending  to  divinity,  when  he  was,  in 
his  estimation,  a  mere  man. 


THE  OPINIONS   OF    THE   CHRISTIAN    FATHERS 
RESPECTING  JESUS   CHRIST. 


The  sacred  scriptures  contain  a  perfect  system  of 
religion.  Their  parts  correspond  and  harmonize. 
Those  doctrines,  which  are  most  momentous  run 
through  the  whole  sacred  volume.  They  not  only 
cast  light  upon  each  other;  but  they  are  their  own 
interpreters.  The  same  doctrine,  expressed  in  dif- 
ferent ways,  exhibited  indifferent  points  of  view,  and 
attended  with  different  circumstances,  presents  itself 
with  greater  clearness,  than  if  it  made  but  a  solitary 
appearance.  So  fully  and  clearly  are  the  leading 
truths  of  the  Gospel  expressed,  that  we  need  not  de- 
pend on  the  creeds  of  others  for  articles  of  our  own 
belief.  On  the  other  hand,  we  ought  not  to  be  so 
self-wise  as  to  refuse  a  hearing  of  the  opinions  and 
arguments  of  others.  We  ought  to  examine  them 
with  impartiality,  and  bring  them,  for  decision,  to  the 
test  of  God's  word. 

We  feel  an  anxiety  to  know  the  religious  senti- 
ments of  those  eminent  Christians,  who  were  cotem- 
porary  with  the  apostles,  or  succeeded  them  during 
a  few  of  the  first  centuries.  We  do  not  look  fo  them 
for  infallibility.  But  if  we  look  to  any,  since  the 
apostolic  age,  for  the  greatest  correctness  of  senti- 
ment and  purity  of  character,  we  naturally  look  to 
those  Christians,   who  lived  nearest  to  the  time  of 


228  OPINIONS   OF    THE    CHRISTIAN    FATHERS 

divine  inspiration;  who  were  best  acquainted  with 
apostolic  example;  and  whose  creeds  were  tried  bj 
tire. 

In  the  first  century  disputes  arose  in  the  church, 
which  required  the  authority  of  apostles  to  decide. 
It  is  not  surprising  that  difference  of  sentiment  should 
early  obtain  in  the  church,  when  it  is  considered  that 
it  was  composed  of  Jews  and  Gentiles,  who  had  not 
entirely  outgrown  their  attachment  to  their  former 
religions;  and  blended  their  different  systems  of  phi- 
losophy with  Christianity.  Modern  writers  are  not 
agreed  in  opinion,  what  was  then  truth,  and  what  was 
error;  or  what  was  orthodoxy,  and  what  was  heresy. 
People  of  opposite  sentiments  find  something  in  that 
early  period,  which  they  enlist  into  the  service  of  their 
own  cause.  It  is  contended  that  the  apostles  taught 
that  Christ  was  merely  human;  and  that  a  belief  of 
his  divinity,  and  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  were 
innovations  in  the  Christian  system.  The  first,  who 
openly  avowed  the  mere  humanity  of  Christ,  are  con- 
sidered by  some  the  legitimate  followers  of  the  apos- 
tles; and  those,  who  believed  his  divinity,  are  consid- 
ered by  them,  corrupters  of  the  Christian  faith.  (See 
Priestley's  History  of  the  Corruptions  of  the  Church.) 

In  the  latter  part  of  the  first,  and  in  the  beginning 
of  the  second  century,  the  Gnostics,  or  Docetje,  and 
the  Ebionites,  commanded  considerable  notice.  The 
Gnostics  pretended  to  restore  to  mankind  a  knowl- 
edge of  the  Supreme  Being.  They  derived  their 
origin  from  blending  the  oriental  philosophy  with 
Christianity.  They  held  that  the  world  was  created 
by  one  or  more  evil,  or  imperfect  beings.  They  de- 
nied the  divine  authority  of  the  books  of  the  O'd  Tes- 
tament. They  said  much  in  favor  of  the  serpent, 
who  beguiled  Eve.  They  held  that  evil  resided  in 
matter  as  its  centre;  and  many  other  things  equally 
repugnant  to  the  mspired  writings.  When  they  had 
so  far  departed  from  the  simplicity  of  the  Gospel,  it 
cannot  be  expected   that  they  would  entertain  very 


RESPECTING    JESUS    CHRIST.  229 

just  notions  of  Christ.  "Thej  denied  his  Deity,  look- 
ing upon  him  as  the  Son  of  God,  and  consequently  infe- 
rior to  the  Father;  and  they  rejected  his  humanity^ 
upon  the  supposition  that  every  thing  concrete  and 
corporeal  is  in  itself  essentially  and  intrinsically  evil. 
From  hence  the  greatest  part  of  the  Gnostics  denied 
that  Christ  was  clothed  with  a  real  body,  or  that  he 
suffered  really.''^  Some  of  them  subjected  themselves 
to  the  greatest  austerities;  but  others  gave  them- 
selves up  to  almost  unbounded  licentiousness."  (See 
Mosheim's  Eccles.  His.)  It  is  presumed  that  none, 
at  the  present  day,  will  contend  that  their  sentiments 
were  congenial  with  those  of  the  apostles;  or  that 
they  had  not  corrupted  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel. 
John  undoubtedly  had  this  class  of  Christians  in  view, 
when  he  wrote  his  first  epitsle.  "Hereby  know  ye 
the  Spirit  of  God;  every  spirit  that  confesseth  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  fiesh,  is  of  God.  And 
every  spirit,  that  confesseth  not^  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
come  in  the  Jlesh,  is  not  of  God;  and  this  is  that  spirit 
of  Antichrist,  whereof  ye  have  heard  that  it  should 
come,  and  even  now  already  is  it  in  the  world,"  1  John 
4-2  S 

The  Ebionites  made  their  first  appearance  near  the 
close  of  the  first  century.  These  Jewish  Christians 
are  thought  to  have  derived  their  name  from  their 
poverty.  They  disbelieved  the  miraculous  conception 
of  Jesus;  but  held  that  he  was  the  son  of  Joseph  and 
Mary,  according  to  the  ordinary  course  of  nature. 
They  denied  his  divinity.  But  what  evidence  is  there 
that  this  class  of  Christians  had  kept  the  faith,  as  it 
was  delivered  to  the  saints?  They  were  members  of 
the  church  at  Jerusalem,  which  had  been  planted  by 
the  apostles,  therefore,  it  is  inferred,  they  must  have 
retained  the  doctrines  taught  by  the  apostles.  This 
inference  is  not  conclusive,  if  the  premises  were 
correct,  because  even  in  the  apostle*s  days,  many  had 
departed  from  sound  doctrine;  and  had  imbibed  gross 
opinions  of  the  Gospel.     The  church  of  Laodicea  had 


230  OPINIONS    OF   THE   CHRISTIAN   FATHERS 

departed  from  her  first  faith  before  the  apostle  John 
had  passed  off  from  the  stage.  Of  course,  their  prox- 
imity to  the  apostles  does  not  prove  the  correctness 
of  their  sentiments. 

The  Ebionites  beheved  that  the  ceremonial  law  of 
Moses  was  of  universal  obligation;  and  that  an  obser- 
vance of  it  was  essential  to  salvation.  They  held  the 
apostle  Paul  in  abhorrence,  and  treated  his  writings 
with  the  utmost  disrespect.  They  incorporated  with 
the  ceremonial  law  the  superstitions  of  their  an- 
cestors, and  the  ceremonies  and  the  traditions  of  the 
Pharisees.  They  denied  that  Christ  made  a  propi- 
tiatory sacrifice  for  sin;  and  they  believed  that  justifi- 
cation came  by  the  works  of  the  law.  (See  Mosheini's 
Eccles.  His.  vol.  i,  p.  174;  and  Milner,  vol.  i,  p.  138.) 
Is  it  to  this  class  of  Christians  we  are  to  look  for 
sound  doctrine?  Is  it  to  those,  who  discarded  a  con- 
siderable part  of  the  New  Testament,  we  are  to  look 
for  primitive  faith;  for  right  sentiments  of  Jesus 
Christ?  There  appears  to  be  as  much  authority  for 
admitting  the  correctness  of  the  sentiments  of  the 
Gnostics  and  Docetas,  as  for  admitting  the  correctness 
of  those  of  the  Ebionites.  Suppose  then  we  admit 
them  both.  They  counteract  each  other.  One  main- 
tains the  humanity  of  Christ;  the  other  denies  it.  One 
maintains  his  derived  divinity;  the  other  denies  it. 
Between  them  both,  they  deny  his  existence. 

The  writings  of  St.  John  were  evidently  levelled 
against  these  two  denominations  of  Christians.  It  is 
generally  admitted  that  his  First  Epistle  was  directed 
against  the  Gnostics  or  Docetse.  He  was  very  par- 
ticular; and  very  decisive.  "Every  spirit  that  con- 
fesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh,  is  of 
God.  And  every  spirit  that  confesseth  not  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh,  is  not  of  God,"  1  John  4: 
2,3.  These  declarations  bear  also,  directly  against 
the  Ebionites.  The  Jews  expected  that  the  Messiah 
was  the  Christ;  that  the  Christ  was  the  Son  of  God: 
and  that  the  Son  of  God  was  divine.     Andrew  said  to 


RESPECTING   JESUS    CHRIST.  231 

his  brother,  "we  have  found  the  Messias,  which  is, 
being  interpreted,  the  Christ."  A  woman  of  Samaria 
said  unto  Jesus  at  a  certain  time,  "I  know  that  Mes- 
sias Cometh,  which  is  called  Christ,"  John  1:41;  and 
4:25.  Peter,  at  a  certain  time,  expressed  his  behef 
in  the  most  decisive  manner.  "We  beheve  and  are 
sure  that  thou  art  that  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  hving 
God,"  John  6:69.  When  Jesus  was  tried  before  Cai- 
phas,  "the  high  priest,  he  answered  and  said  unto  him, 
I  adjure  thee  by  the  hving  God,  that  thou  tell  us, 
whether  thou  be  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,"  Mat. 
26:63.  In  both  these  texts,  Christ  and  Son  of  God, 
are  equivalent.  When  Christ  called  God  his  Father, 
or  himself  the  Son  of  God,  the  Jews  understood  him 
to  make  himself  God,  or  equal  to  God,"  John  5:18; 
and  10:33.  From  this  it  is  evident  that  it  was  an 
opinion  among  the  Jews,  that  the  Christ  had  exist- 
ence before  he  came  into  the  world,  and  that  he  was 
divine.  With  this  in  view  we  easily  get  the  meaning 
of  John,  when  he  applies  his  observations  to  the 
Ebionites,  who  were  Jews.  "Every  spirit  that  con- 
fesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh  is  of 
God."  In  the  flesh,  expresses  the  manner,  in  which  he 
came.  Is  come  in  the  flesh,  conveys  an  idea,  that  he 
had  existence  before  he  appeared  in  this  manner. 

If  Christ  had  been  a  mere  man,  and  John  had  be- 
lieved him  to  be  no  more,  it  is  not  probable  he  would 
have  used  this  phraseology.  That  he  did  consider 
him  to  be  more  than  a  man,  appears  evident  from  the 
beginning  of  his  epistle.  Here  he  speaks  of  the 
Word  of  life,  which  he  had  heard,  seen,  contemplated 
on,  and  handled.  In  the  next  verse  he  calls  the  Word 
of  life,  the  Life.  "For  the  Life  was  manifested,  and 
we  have  seen  it,  and  bear  witness,  and  shew  unto  you 
that  eternal  Life,  which  was  with  the  Father,  and  wa?- 
manifested  unto  us."  What,  or  who  was  the  Word  of 
life;  that  Life;  that  eternal  Life,  which  was  with  the 
Father,  which  was  manifested  to  the  apostles,  and  of 
which  they  testified?   It   is  evident  that  it  was  Jesus 


232  OPINIONS    OP   THE    CHRISTIAN    FATHERS 

Christ.  Christ,  according  to  the  record  which  John 
made  of  him,  called  himself  the  Life.  But  we  will 
let  St.  John  speak  for  himself.  In  the  beginning  of 
his  Gospel  he  says,  "In  the  beginning  was  the  Word, 
and  the  Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God. 
The  same  was  in  the  beginning  with  God.  In  him 
was  life;  and  the  Life  was  the  light  of  men.  And 
the  Word  was  made  flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us,"  John 
1:1,2,4,14.  It  appears  evident  that  St.  John  exhibited 
the  same  personage  in  the  beginning  of  his  Epistle, 
which  he  exhibited  in  the  beginning  of  his  Gospel; 
and  it  is  evident  that  he,  whom  he  introduced  in  the 
beginning  of  his  Gospel  was  Jesus  Christ.  If  St. 
John  designed,  by  the  names,  tiie  Word,  God,  eternal 
Life,  to  convey  an  idea  of  a  mere  man,  he  used  these 
words  in  an  unusual  sense.  If  a  belief  of  the  divinity 
of  Christ  had  been  the  prevailing  heresy  of  the  time, 
it  is  not  probable  that  St.  John  would  have  endeav- 
ored to  discountenance  this  error  by  applying  a  divine 
attribute,  a  divine  name,  a  divine  work  to  Jesus  Christ. 
It  cannot  be  supposed  he  would  have  used  this  lan- 
guage to  establish  the  mere  humanity  of  Christ. 

It  is  evident  that  the  doctrine  of  the  Ebionites 
respecting  the  mere  humanity  of  Christ,  was  consid- 
ered heretical  by  the  church  in  the  time  of  Irenaeus, 
"who  wrote  his  books  against  heresies  in  the  year  176 
or  177.  For  in  the  list,  which  he  hath  given  of  her- 
etics, lib.  1,  he  places  the  Ebionites  between  the  Ce- 
rinthians  and  Nicolaitans,  both  of  them  acknowledged 
heretics.  And  in  his  third  book,  he  refutes  by  testi- 
monies from  the  scriptures,  the  opinion  of  those,  who 
affirmed  that  Christ  was  a  mere  man,  engendered  of 
Joseph;  which  was  precisely  the  opinion  of  the  proper 
Ebionites."  (Macknight.')  "It  is  certain  that  Gnostics 
and  Ebionites  were  always  looked  on  as  perfectly  dis- 
tinct from  the  Christian  church.  There  needs  no  more 
evidence  to  prove  this  than  their  arrangement  by  Ire- 
naBUs  and  Eusebius  under  heretical  parties."  (Milner.) 
If  this  doctrine  was  so  early  considered  heretical,  it  is 


RESPECTING    JESUS    CHRIST.  233 

not  probable  that  it  was  a  doctrine  taught   by   the 
apostles.  (See  Horseky's  third  Sup.  Disq.) 

In   the  second  century   Christianity  suffered  much, 
by   attempts  to  blend  with  it  the  oriental  and  Egyp- 
tian philosophy.     Praxeas,   a    man  distinguished  for 
genius  and  learning,  undertook  to  explain  the  doctrine 
of  the  Trinity,  so  that  it  might  be  understood.     "He 
denied  any  real  distinction  between  the  Father,   Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost,  and  maintained  that  the  Father,  sole 
Creator  of  all  things,  had  united  to  himself  the  human 
nature  of  Christ."  (Mosheim.)     His   followers   were 
called   Monarchians,  and  also   Patropassians,  because 
they  believed,  or  it  was  inferred  from  their  belief,  that 
the  Father  was  so   intimately  united    with   the  man 
Christ,    that  he  actually  suffered  with  him.     But  "it 
does  not  appear  that  this  sect  formed   to  themselves 
a   separate  place  of  worship,  or  removed  themselves 
from  the  ordinary  assemblies  of  Christians."     From 
this   circumstance   it  does  not  follow  that   they  were 
sound  in  faith;  or  that  they  were  not   considered  her- 
etics.    The  orthodox  and  the  heterodox  have,  more 
or  less,  worshipped  together  from  the   first   century. 
But  this  is  essentially  different  from  retaining  in  the 
bosom  of  the   church  those,  who  had  perverted  the 
doctrines  of  Christianity.    Praxeas  was  persecuted  for 
the  sentiments    he   inculcated  respecting  the  Father, 
Son  and  Spirit.      If  this  cast  a  shade  upon  the  dispo- 
sition of  his  opponents,  it   proves  that  he  was  in  the 
minority;  and  the  church  esteemed  his  doctrine  her- 
etical.    It  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  the  church 
generally,  at  so  early  a  period,  had  lost  the  knowledge 
of  the  nature  and  character  of  Jesus  Christ;  and  that 
this  knowledge  was  preserved  among  those,  who  de- 
nied the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.     It  is  more  p|K]^able  that 
sound  doctrine  could,  at  this  early  period,  be  found  in 
the  body  of  the  church,  than  among  those  individuals 
and  parties,  who  had  blended  philosophy  with  Chris- 
tianity; and   attributed   real  suffering  to  the  Father. 
The  opinion  of  Praxeas  is  not  very  different  from  the 
30 


234  OPINIONS    OF   THE   CHRISTIAN    FATHERS 

opinion  of  some  of  modern  time.  If  he,  so  soon  after 
the  apostle's  days,  was  deemed  a  heretic,  it  is  not  sur- 
prising that  those  of  similar  opinions,  at  the  present 
day,  should  be  deeoied  the  same. 

There  is  a  number  of  men,  who  succeeded  the  apos- 
tles, very  different  in  sentiment  from  the  Docetas, 
Gnostics,  Corinthians,  Ebionites  and  Patropassians; 
and  much  more  like  the  apostles.  We  should  rather 
look  to  them  for  apostolic  sentiments. 

Clement,  bishop  of  Rome,  was  for  a  time  cotempo- 
rary  with  the  apostle  Paul;  but  survived  him  a  number 
of  years.  The  apostle  makes  honorable  mention  of 
him;  calls  him  his  fellow  laborer;  and  says  that  his 
name  was  in  the  book  of  life.  Many  writings  have 
been  attributed  to  him,  of  which,  it  is  generally  agreed, 
he  was  not  the  author.  This  circumstance  affords 
evidence  that  his  name  was  of  great  weight  in  the 
church.  One  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  bearing  his 
name  is  considered  genuine.  In  this  he  expresses 
much  of  the  sentiuient  and  spirit  of  the  apostles. 
Speaking  of  Christ,  he  says,  "Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
the  Sceptre  of  the  Majesty  of  God,  came  not  in  the 
pomp  of  arrogance  and  pride;  though  who  can  under- 
stand the  thunder  of  his  power?  But  he  was  meek 
and  lowly."  The  Sceptre  of  the  Majesty  when  applied 
to  Christ  conveys  an  idea  of  his  authority  and  govern- 
ment; and  it  appears  lo  be  parallel  with  what  Christ 
said  of  himself  after  his  resurrection.  "All  power 
(i.  e.  authority)  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  in 
earth."  To  be  the  Sceptre  of  God's  Majesty;  to  pos- 
sess all  authority  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  conveys  an 
idea  of  divine  authority.  If  it  was  delegated,  it 
appears  that  the  recipient  must  be  divine;  or  he  would 
not  be  capable  of  performing  its  functions.  "Who 
can  understand  the  thunder  of  his  power?"  This 
sublime  language,  which  he  applied  to  Christ,  he  bor- 
rowed from  Job,  who  applied  it  to  God  in  his  descrip- 
tion of  his  Power  and  Majesty.  In  this  he  imitated 
the  apostles,  who  applied  to  Christ  what  had  been. 


RESPECTING   JESUS   CHRIST.  235 

in  the  Old  Testament,  applied  to  God.  After  Clement 
had  thus  spoken  of  the  divine  dignity  and  glory  of  the 
Savior,  he  adds,  "he  was  meek  and  lowly."  In  this 
manner,  he  imitated  the  apostles  by  exhibiting  the 
Lord  Jesus  in  his  divine  and  human  nature;  as  the 
Sceptre  of  God's  Majesty;  and  as  occu[)ying  the  low 
condition  of  humanity. 

Again  Clement  speaks  of  Christ,  "Have  we  not  all 
one  God,  one  Christ,  one  Spirit  of  grace  poured  upon 
us,  and  one  calling  in  Christ?"— "Through  him,  that 
is  Jesus  Christ,  let  us  behold  the  glory  of  God  shining 
in  his  face."  This  language  appears  much  like  that 
of  the  apostles;  and  if  their's  were  not  explained  away, 
it  appears  that  this  would  naturally  give  us  an  idea  of 
Christ's  divinity.  When  the  dispute  ran  high,  whether 
Christ  was  merely  divine,  or  merely  human,  it  appears 
that  Clement,  who  was  well  acquainted  with  the 
apostle's  opinion  on  this  subject,  if  he  had  believed 
the  simple  humanity  of  Jesus,  would  not  have  spoken 
of  him  in  language,  which  was  appropriate  to  God. 

Ignatius,  bishop  of  Antioch,  sulfered  martyrdom  in 
the  year  107.  He  was  a  disciple  of  St.  John;  and 
was,  undoubtedly,  acquainted  with  his  sentiments  of 
Jesus  Christ.  When  he  was  questioned  by  Trajan 
respecting  his  religion,  among  other  things  he  said, 
"There  is  only  one  God,  who  made  heaven,  and  earth, 
the  sea  and  all  that  is  in  them;  and  one  Jesus  Christ, 
his  only  begotten  Son,  whose  kingdom  be  my  portion." 
By  the  name  only  begotten  Son,  he  undoubtedly  meant 
"what  Christ  meant,  when  he  called  himself  the  Son 
of  God;  what  Peter  meant,  when  he  called  him  the 
Son  of  the  living  God;  what  the  higb  priest  meant 
\vhen  he  adjured  him  to  tell  them  whether  he  was 
the  Christ,  the  Son  of  God.  It  is  evident  that  by  Son 
of  God,  the  Jews  understood  God,  or  equality  with 
God.  It  13  probable  he  used  the  name  Son  of  God  in 
its  popular  sense. 

Ignatius,  in  his  salutation  to  the  Church  at  Ephesus, 
calls  them  "elect  in  the  genuine  sullcring,  by  the  will 


236  OPINIONS    OP   THE    CHRISTIAN    FATHERS 

of  the  Father,  and  of  Jesus  Christ  our  God,"  &c.  It 
is  not  surprising,  that  he  should  imitate  the  apostle, 
whose  disciple  he  was;  and  call  his  Master  God;  and 
by  this  name  mean  the  same,  which  he  meant. 

"One  Physician  there  is,  bodily  and  spiritual,  begot- 
ten and  unbegotten,  God  appearing  in  flesh,  in  immor- 
tal, true   life,  both  from  Mary  and   from  God,  first 
suffering  then  impassible."     This   language   appears 
to   be   plain.     It  naturally  conveys   an   idea  of   two 
natures  in  the  Physician  Jesus  Christ;  that  one  nature 
was  literally  begotten;  that  the  other  nature  was  not 
thus  begotten;  that  divine  nature  appeared  in  human- 
ity; that  the  one  was  from  Mary,  the  other  from  God; 
that  one  was  capable  of  suffering,  and  the  other  was 
not.     It  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  Ignatius  called  this 
Physician  God  appearing  in  flesh;  and  alsoyj-om  God. 
If  God  without  distinction  in  his  nature  dwelt  in  the 
man  Christ  Jesus,  there  appears  to  be  an  incongruity 
in  saying  that  God  was  from  God.     He  states  that 
this  Physician  is    both    from    Mary  and    from    God. 
That  he  was  from  Mary  in  his  human  nature,  is  not 
disputed.     But  in  what  sense  was  \\efrom  God?     Is  it 
in  no  other  sense  than  he  was  sent  from  God  as  John 
was  sent?  Suppose  this  to  be  the  meaning.     Suppose 
Christ  to  be  a  mere  man,  as  was  his  forerunner.     In 
what  sense  then  was  he  unbegotten;  in  what  sense  was 
he  God   appearing  in  flesh;  in   what  sense   was   he 
impassible?     It  is  difficult  to  explain  away  all  the  parts 
of  this   passage  of  Ignatius  by  any   one  rule;  or   by 
difi*erent  rules,  which  will  not  clash. 

Ignatius,  endeavoring  to  bring  off,  or  preserve  the 
Ephesians  from  Judaism,  observes,  "The  divine 
prophets  lived  according  to  Jesus  Christ.  For  this 
they  were  persecuted,  being  inspired  by  his  grace  to 
assure  the  disobedient  that  there  is  one  God,  who 
manifested  himself  by  Jesus  Christ  his  Son,  who  is  his 
eternal  Word. — But  live  according  to  the  life  of  the 
Lord,  in  which  also  our  Life  rose  again  by  himself. — 
That  you  may  be  well  assured  of  the  nativity,  suffer- 


RESPECTING   JESUS    CHRIST.  23/ 

ing  and  resurrection,  during  the  government  of  Pon- 
tius Pilate,  of  which  literally  and  really,  Jesus  Christ 
was  the  subject."  This  language,  which  he  applied 
to  Christ,  bears  a  strong  resemblance  of  the  language 
of  St.  John.  They  both  call  Jesus  Christ  Son  of 
God.  They  both  call  him  the  Word.  Ignatius  calls 
him  eternal  Word.  They  both  call  him  Life.  St. 
John  calls  him  "that  eternal  Life."  They  both  attri- 
bute to  him  eternity.  This  attribute  cannot,  with 
propriety,  be  applied  to  a  mere  creature,  or  to  a 
derived  being. 

Ignatius,  in  view  of  his  death  speaks  of  Christ  thus: 
"He  is  my  gain  laid  up  tor  me,  suffer  me  to  imitate  the 
passion  of  my  God."  In  a  preceding  quotation  he 
represented  Christ  first  suffering,  then  impassible.  In 
this  quotation  he  calls  him  God,  and  in  this  name  attri- 
butes to  him  sufferings.  He  did  not,  probably,  design 
to  convey  an  idea  that  divine  nature  suffered.  He  had 
declared  the  contrary.  In  consequence  of  the  inti- 
mate union  of  human  and  divine  nature  in  Jesus  Christ, 
he  called  him  God,  without  making  a  distinction  of 
natures;  and  without  this  distinction  he  attributed  suf- 
fering to  him.  This  is  agreeable  to  our  manner  of 
speaking  concerning  man.  We  say  he  is  mortal; 
whereas  his  better  part  is  immortal.  The  phraseology 
of  Ignatius  clearly  conveys  an  idea  of  two  natures  in 
Jesus  Christ. 

Again  he  speaks  of  the  Savior.  "I  glorify  Jesus 
Christ,  our  God,  who  hath  given  you  wisdom.  For  I 
understand  that  you  are  perfect  in  the  immovable 
faith  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  really  was  of  the 
seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh;  born  of  the  vir- 
gin really;  who  really  suffered  under  Pontius  Pilate. 
Consider  the  times,  and  expect  him,  who  is  above  all 
time,  who  is  unconnected  with  time,  the  invisible  One, 
made  visible  for  us,  the  impassible,  but  passible  for 
us;  who  bore  all  sorts  of  sufferings  for  us."  When 
Ignatius  was  led  to  execution,  "He  prayed  to  the  Son 


238  OPINIONS    OF    THE    CHRISTIAN    FATHERS 

of  God  in  behalf  of  the  churches,  that  he  would  put 
a  stop  to  the  persecution."   (^Milner.) 

If  we  consider  the  time,  in  which  Ignatius  lived,  his 
writings  will  appear  with  greater  perspicuity  and  per- 
tinence. The  Docetce  and  Ebionites  had  gained  ground, 
and  were  prevailing.  He  wished  to  discountenance 
these  sects,  and  he  directed  his  observations  against 
them.  When  he  said  that  Christ  was  really  of  the 
seed  of  David,  was  born  of  the  virgin  really,  and  7'eally 
suffered  under  Pontius  Pilate,  he  repelled  the  senti- 
ment of  the  Doceta3,  Avho  held  that  Christ  was  not 
really  human,  but  had  only  the  appearance  of  a 
man.  When  he  called  him  impassible,  unconnected 
with  time,  eternal  Word  and  God,  he  repelled  the 
sentiment  of  the  Ebionites,  who  believed  that  Christ 
was  merely  human.  Had  Ignatius  been  of  this  opin- 
ion, and  designed  to  discountenance  the  behef  that 
Christ  was  divine,  it  is  incredible  that  he  should  call 
him  impassible,  eternal,  and  even  call  him  God.  This 
language  would  be  directly  opposite  to  his  design. 
But  if  he  believed  that  Christ  was  both  human  and 
divine,  his  language  appears  to  be  appropriate.  He 
sets  forth  both  natures  in  language,  which  is  adapted 
to  both.  When  it  is  considered  that  Ignatius  was  the 
disciple  of  John;  that  his  language  and  sentiment  bore 
a  striking  resemblance  of,  and  coincidence  with,  the 
language  and  sentiment  of  that  apostle,  the  testimony 
of  this  Christian  father  appears  with  great  authority. 
After  he  had  given  such  a  representation  of  Christ, 
he  appears  consistent  with  himself,  when,  at  the  close 
of  life,  he  directs  his  prayer  to  him  in  behalf  of  the 
church.* 

Justin  Martyr  bore  testimony,  in  a  clear  and  decisive 
manner,  to  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  was  "a 
man  of  eminent  piety  and  considerable  learning,  who 
from  a  pagan  philosopher,  became  a  Christian  martyr. 
He  had  frequented  all  the  different  sects  of  philoso- 

•  Concerning    the    genuineness   and   authenticity   of  Ignatius'  epistles,   see 
Horseley'b  Letters  to  Priestley. 


RESPECTING   JESUS    CHRIST.  239 

phy  in  an  ardent  and  impartial  pursuit  of  truth,  and 
finding  neither  among  stoics  nor  Peripatetics,  neither 
in  the  Pythagorean,  nor  Platonic  schools,  any  satis- 
factory account  of  the  perfections  of  the  Supreme 
Being,  and  the  nature  and  destination  of  the  human 
soul,  he  embraced  Christianity  on  account  of  the  light 
which  it  cast  upon  these  interesting  subjects." 

This  Christian  philosopher  expressed  his  belief  in 
the  following  manner,  when  he  was  arraigned  before 
an  officer  and  questioned  respecting  his  religion.  "We 
believe  the  one  only  God,  to  be  the  Creator  of  all 
things,  visible  and  invisible,  and  confess  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  foretold  by  the  prophets 
of  old,  and  who  shall  hereafter  appear  the  Judge  of 
mankind,  a  Savior,  teacher,  and  master  to  all  those, 
who  are  duly  instructed  by  him.  As  for  myself  I  am 
too  mean  to  be  able  to  say  any  thing  becoming  his 
infinite  Deity.  This  was  the  business  of  the  prophets, 
who  ages  ago  had  foretold  the  coming  of  the  Son  of 
God  into  the  world."  In  this  quotation,  Justin  makes 
a  distinction  between  God  and  the  Son  of  God.  But 
he  attributes  to  him  unqualified  divinity,  viz.  ^Hnfinite 
Deityy  He  understood  the  prophets  to  prophesy  of 
Christ,  possessing  infinite  Deity.  He  appeared  to 
agree  with  the  Jews  in  this  particular,  that  by  the 
name.  Son  of  God,  was  to  be  understood  God,  or  one 
equal  with  God. 

In  his  dialogue  with  Trypho,  the  Jew,  this  enemy 
of  Christianity  charges  him  with  paradox  and  foolish- 
ness. Justin  takes  him  on  his  own  ground,  and  shews 
that  if  Christ's  divinity  could  not  be  demonstrated,  he 
ought  to  be  acknowledged  the  Christ  of  God,  on  ac- 
count of  the  exact  correspondence  between  his  char- 
acter and  the  Messiah,  predicted  by  the  prophets. 

"in  another  part  of  the  same  dialogue,  (p.  56,)  he 
speaks  of  Christ  as  the  God  of  Israel,  who  was  with 
Moses,  and  shews  what  he  meant  when  he  said  that 
true  Christians  regarded  what  they  were  taught  by 
the    prophets.     In  his  First  Apology,    he  tells    the 


240  OPINIONS    OP    THE    CHRISTIAN   FATHERS 

emperor  in  what  sense  the  Christians  were  atheists, 
they  did  not  worship  the  gods  commonly  so  called, 
but  they  (p.  137)  worshipped  and  adored  the  true 
God  and  his  Son,  and  the  prophetic  spirit,  honoring 
them  in  word  and  in  truth."  This  quotation  needs  no 
comment.  It  is  plain,  and  expressive  of  the  sentiment 
which  he  entertained  of  the  Son  and  Spirit. 

Justin  suffered  martyrdom  about  the  year  163.  He 
appears  to  have  imbibed  the  sentiments  of  the  apos- 
tles respecting  the  Son  and  Spirit.  He  appears  to 
be  clear  in  his  belief  of  their  distincfion  and  divinity. 
His  sentiments  of  Christ  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  of 
no  inconsiderable  weight.  He  was  a  man  of  learning. 
He  appeared  to  be  an  impartial  inquirer  after  truth. 
He  evinced  his  sincerity  by  suffering  death  for  the 
cause  of  Christ. 

Polycarp,  bishop  of  Smyrna,  suffered  martyrdom, 
A.  D.  167.  "The  apostles,  and  we  may  apprehend 
St.  John  particularly,  ordained  him  to  this  office.  He 
had  been  familiarly  conversant  with  the  apostles,  and 
received  the  government  of  the  church  from  those 
who  had  been  eye  witnesses  and  ministers  of  our  Lord, 
and  continually  taught  that  which  he  had  been  taught 
by  them."*  It  does  not  appear  that  he  sought  the 
honor  of  martyrdom.  But  when  he  was  brought  to 
execution  he  suffered  death  with  Christian   fortitude. 

When  he  was  bound,  and  the  preparations  were 
made  for  burning  him,  he  addressed  the  following 
prayer  to  God.  "O  Father  of  thy  beloved  and  blessed 
Son  Jesus  Christ,  through  whom  we  have  attained  the 
knowledge  of  thee,  O  God  of  angels  and  principalities, 
and  of  all  creation,  and  of  all  the  just,  who  live  in 
thy  sight,  I  bless  thee  that  thou  hast  counted  me  wor- 
thy of  this  day,  and  this  hour,  to  receive  ray  portion 
in  the  number  of  martyrs,  in  the  cup  of  Christ,  for  the 
resurrection  to  eternal  life,  both  of  soul  and  body,  in 
the  incorruptionof  the  Holy  Ghost,  among  whom  may 

*  Milner's  Church  History,  vol.  i,  p.  176,  Soslon  edition. 


RESPECTING   JESUS    CHRIST.  241 

I  be  received  before  thee  this  day  as  a  sacrifice  well 
savored,  and  acceptable,  as  thou  the  faithful  and  true 
God  hast  prepared,  declaring  beforehand,  and  fulfil- 
hng  accordingly.  Wherefore  1  praise  thee  for  all 
those  things,  I  bless  thee,  I  glorify  thee,  by  the  eter- 
nal High  Priest,  Jesus  Christ,  thy  well  beloved  Son; 
through  whom  with  him  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  be  glory 
to  thee,  both  now  and  forever.  Amen."  This  prayer 
is  expressed  in  language  truly  apostolical.  The  mar- 
tyr addressed  the  Father  through  his  beloved  and 
blessed.  Son.  In  connexion  with  him  he  named  the 
Holy  Spirit.  He  called  Jesus  Christ  the  eternal  High 
Priest.  There  is  nothing  in  his  language,  which 
appears  to  be  directed  particularly  against  any  pre- 
vailing error.  It  appears  to  be  truly  devotional. 
Whoever  would  gather  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
from  the  language  of  the  apostles,  would  undoubtedly 
perceive  it  in  his. 

The  church  of  Smyrna  wrote  a  letter  to  the  church 
of  Philomeliura  concerning  the  character  and  death 
of  Polycarp.  Speaking  of  Jesus  Christ,  they  said, 
"that  it  is  not  possible  for  us  to  forsake  Christ,  who 
suffered  for  the  salvation  of  all,  who  are  saved  of  the 
human  race,  nor  ever  to  worship  any  other.  For  we 
adore  him  as  being  the  Son  of  God."  This  sentiment 
expressed  by  a  church,  appears  to  be  of  no  inconsid- 
erable weight,  when  it  is  considered  what  honorable 
mention  was  made  of  it  by  Christ  to  his  servant  John. 
"I  know  thy  works  and  tribulation  and  poverty,  but 
thou  art  richy 

Melito,  bishop  of  Sardis,  belongs  to  the  second  cen- 
tury. Speaking  of  the  Christians,  he  says,  "the  Chris- 
tians do  not  adore  insensible  stones,  but  that  they 
worship  one  God  alone,  who  is  before  all  things,  and 
in  all  things,  and  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  God  before  all 
ages."  Milner  makes  the  following  quotation  from 
Eusebius.  "Who  knoweth  not  that  the  works  of 
Irenaeus,  Melito,  and  all  other  Christians,  do  confess 
Christ  to  be  both  God  and  man.  In  fine,  how  many 
31 


242  OPINIONS    OP    THE    CHRISTIAN    FATHERS 

psalms  and  hymns,  and  canticles  were  from  the 
beginning  by  faithful  Christians,  which  celebrate 
Christ,  the  Word  of  God,  as  no  other  than  God  in- 
deed?" 

Irena3us  lived  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second,  and 
in  the  beginning  of  the  third  century.  He  suiFered 
martyrdom  under  Septimius  Severus.  Speaking  of 
tradition,  he  said,  "It  is  what  several  barbarous 
nations  observe,  who  believe  in  Jesus  without  paper 
or  ink,  having  the  doctrine  of  salvation  written  on 
their  hearts  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  faithfully  keeping 
up  to  ancient  tradition  concerning  one  God,  the  Creator, 
and  his  Son  Jesus  Christ." 

Speaking  of  Christ,  Irenasus  observed,  "He  united 
man  to  God;  for  if  man  had  not  overcome  the  adver- 
sary of  man,  the  enemy  could  not  have  been  legally 
conquered.  And  again,  if  God  had  not  granted  salva- 
tion, we  should  not  have  been  put  in  firm  possession 
of  it,  and  if  man  had  not  been  united  to  God,  he  could 
not  have  beea  made  partaker  of  immortality.  It 
behoved  then  the  Mediator  between  God  and  man, 
by  his  afhnity  with  both,  to  bring  both  into  agreement 
with  each  other.  The  Word  of  God,  Jesus  Christ, 
on  account  of  his  immense  love,  became  what  we  are, 
that  he  might  make  us  what  he  is."  In  these  quota- 
tions Ircnffius  has  declared  his  belief  that  the  Son  of 
God,  or  the  Word  of  God,  is  Jesus  Christ;  and  that  he 
partakes  of  human  and  divine  nature. 

The  book,  entitled  the  Epistle  of  St.  Barnabas^ 
though  not  the  composition  of  the  apostle  Barnabas, 
is  allowed  to  have  been  written  in  the  apostolic  age. 
"The  Lord,"  says  Barnabas,  "submitted  to  suffer  for 
our  soul,  although  he  be  the  Lord  of  the  whole  earth, 
unto  whom  he  said  the  day  before  the  world  was 
finished,  "Let  us  make  man  after  our  image,  and  our 
likeness."  Again, — "for  if  he  had  not  come  in  the 
flesh,  how  could  we  mortals  seeing  him  have  been 
preserved,  when  they,  who  behold  the  sun,  which  is 
to  perish,  and  is  the  work  of  his  hands,  are  unable  to 


RESPECTING    JESUS    CHRIST.  243 

look  directly  against  its  rays."  Again, — "If  then  the 
Son  of  God  being  Lord,  and  being  to  judge  the  quick 
and  dead,  suffered  to  the  end  that  his  wound  might 
make  us  alive;  let  us  believe  that  the  Son  of  God  had 
no  power  to  suffer,  had  it  not  been  for  us."  And 
again, — "Meanwhile  thou  hast  [the  whole  doctrine] 
concerning  the  majesty  of  Christ,  how  all  things  were 
made  for  him  and  through  him;  to  whom  be  honor, 
power,  and  glory,  now  and  for  ever."  There  is  evi- 
dence from  his  writings,  that  he  was  a  Hebrew  Chris- 
tian. He  did  not  labor  to  prove  the  divinity  of  Christ, 
as  he  probably  would  have  done,  had  those  to  whom 
he  wrote,  disbelieved  it;  but  he  made  his  assertions, 
as  if  his  sentiments  of  Christ  were  generally  received 
by  Jewish  converts,  and  would  not  be  disputed.  (See 
Horseley's  eighth  Letter  to  Priestley.^ 

Tertullian  lived  in  the  second  and  third  century. 
He  wrote  against  Praxeas.  He  observes  on  the  sub- 
ject of  the  Trinity,  "Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  yet 
one  God."  Milner  represents  him  in  the  following 
manner.  "He  speaks  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  as  both  God 
and  man.  Son  of  man,  and  Son  of  God,  and  called  Jesus 
Christ.  He  speaks  also  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  Com- 
forter, the  Sanctifier  of  the  faith  of  those  who  believe 
in  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit.  He  observes 
that  this  rule  of  faith  had  obtained  from  the  beginning 
of  the  Gospel,  antecedent  to  any  former  heretics, 
much  more  to  Praxeas,  who  was  of  yesterday."  If 
this  be  a  fair  representation  of  his  ideas,  he  was  clear 
and  decisive  in  his  belief  of  the  Trinity.  If  he  was, 
in  some  respects,  unsound  in  the  faith,  this  would  not 
invalidate  his  testimony  respecting  the  rule  of  faith, 
which  had  obtained  from  the  beginning  of  the  gospel; 
nor  would  it  prove  him  to  be  incorrect  respecting  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

Clemens  Alexandrinus  was  cotemporary  with  Ire- 
na3us  and  Tertullian.  Contrasting  the  authors  of 
idolatry  with  Christ,  he  observes,  "Whereas  Jesus 
Christ,  who  from  all  eternity  was  the  Word  of  God, 


244  OPINIONS    OP    THE   CHRISTIAN    FATHERS 

always  had  a  compassionate  tenderness  for  men,  and 
at  last  took  their  nature  upon  him,  to  free  them  from 
the  slavery  of  demons,  to  open  the  eyes  of  the  bhnd, 
and  the  ears  of  the  deaf,  to  guide  their  paths  in  the 
way  of  righteousness,  to  deliver  them  from  death  and 
hell,  and  to  bestow  on  them  everlastino:  life,  and  to 
put  them  into  a  capacity  of  living  an  heavenly  life 
here  upon  earth;  and  lastly,  that  God  made  himseif 
man  to  teach  man  to  be  like  unto  God. — Believe, 
therefore,  in  one  God,  who  is  God  and  man,  and 
receive  eternal  salvation  for  a  recompense." 

Cyprian,  bishop  of  Carthage,  was  distinguished  for 
his  natural  abilities,  for  his  eloquence,  for  his  fervent 
})iety,  and  for  his  exertions  to  promote  the  cause  of 
Christ.  He  suffered  martyrdom  in  the  third  century. 
In  his  writings,  he  expresses  his  sentiments  respecting 
Jesus  Christ.  In  one  of  his  letters,  he  writes  thus, 
"How  shameful  must  it  be  for  a  Christian  to  be  un- 
willing to  suffer,  when  the  Master  suffered  first;  and 
that  we  should  be  unwilling  to  suffer  for  our  sins,  when 
he  who  had  no  sin  of  his  own,  suffered  for  us.  The 
Son  of  God  suffered  that  he  might  make  us  the  sons 
of  God."  In  this  quotation,  he  calls  Christ  by  the 
scriptural  names.  Master,  and  Son  of  God.  If  his  use 
of  these  names  do  not  prove  what  were  his  particular 
sentiments  of  Christ's  nature  and  character,  what  he 
said  of  his  sufferings  carries  evidence  that  he  believed 
tliat  his  death  was  an  expiatory  sacrifice. 

Again  this  Christian  father  remarks,  "What  glory! 
what  joy!  to  be  admitted  to  see  God,  to  be  honored, 
to  partake  of  the  joy  of  eternal  light  and  salvation 
with  Christ  the  Lord  your  God."  Again  he  gives 
the  same  divine  name  to  Christ.  "We  ought  not  by 
a  long  delay  and  neglect,  to  suffer  the  temples  of  God 
to  remain  in  captivity,  but  to  labor  with  all  our  might 
and  quickly  to  shew  our  obsequiousness  to  Christ  our 
Judere,  our  Lord  and  our  God.'''' 

Cyprian,  a  little  before  his  execution,  bemg  inter- 
rogated and   threatened    by   the   proconsul,  rephed. 


RESPECTING    JESUS    CHRIST-  245 

"My  safety  and  virtue  is  Christ  the  Lord,  whom  I 
desire  to  serve  for  ever."  In  these  quotations  he 
viewed  Christ  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin;  he  called  him  our 
Lord  and  our  God;  and  he  expressed  a  desire  to 
serve  him  for  ever.  If  he  beheved  Christ's  divinity, 
he    was  consistent  in  making  these  expressions. 

Dionysius,  bishop  of  Alexandria,  expressed  his  ideas 
on  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  with  clearness  and  de- 
cision. "The  Father,  (says  he)  cannot  be  separated 
from  the  Son,  as  he  is  the  Father;  for  that  name  at 
the  same  time  establishes  the  relation.  Neither  can 
the  Son  be  separated  from  the  Father,  for  the  word 
Father  implies  the  union;  and  the  Spirit  is  in  their 
hands,  because  it  cannot  exist  without  him,  who  sends 
it  to  him  who  bears  it.  Thus  we  understand  the  in- 
divisible Unity  of  the  Trinity;  and  we  comprehend  the 
Trinity  in  the  Unity  without  any  diminution." 

It  is  not  foreign  to  our  purpose  to  introduce  here 
Paul  of  Samosata,  who  was  bishop  of  Antioch.  He 
taught  that  Christ  "was  by  nature  a  common  man  as 
we  are."  In  consequence  of  this  sentiment,  and  of 
the  irregularities  of  his  life,  a  large  council  was  called 
at  Antioch.  He  "was  induced  to  recant,  and  gave 
such  appearances  of  sincerity,  that  Firmilian  and  the 
council  believed  him;"  and  he  was  suffered  to  retain 
his  bishopric.  His  dissimulation  did  not  remain  long 
concealed.  After  a  few  years  another  council,  con- 
sisting of  seventy  bishops,  was  convened.  "The  am- 
biguous Paul"  at  this  time  disclosed  his  sentiments 
respecting  Christ.  "All  the  bishops  agreed  to  his 
deposition  and  exclusion  from  the  Christian  church." 
This  decision  was  made  in  the  year  269;  and  it  proves 
that  a  disbelief  of  the  divinity  of  Christ  was  not  the 
prevailing  opinion  of  that  time;  and  that  it  was  dis- 
countenanced by  the  Christian  church. 

Felix  was  the  successor  of  Dionysius  of  Rome.  He 
wrote  a  letter  to  Maximus  of  Alexandria,  'in  which 
he  sjieaks  thus,  probably  on  account  of  Paul's  heresy.' 
"We  believe  that  our  Savior  Jesus  Christ  was  born  of 


246  OPINIONS    OP   THE    CHRISTIAN   FATHERS 

the  virgin  Mary;  we  believe  that  he  himself  is  the 
eternal  God,  and  the  Word,  and  not  a  man  whom  God 
hath  taken  into  himself,  so  as  that  man  should  be 
distinct  from  him:  for  the  Son  of  God  being  perfect, 
God  was  also  made  perfect  man,  being  incarnate  of 
the  virgin." 

Origin  flourished  in  the  third  century.  He  was 
acknowledged  to  be  a  man  of  ability,  learning,  piety 
and  indefatigable  in  his  labors.  Trinitarians  and  Uni- 
tarians, both  have  claimed  him.  Sometimes  lie 
expressed  his  ideas  concerning  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Spirit  in  language,  which  entitled  him  to  the  ranks  of 
Trinitarians.  At  other  times  his  language  naturally 
imported  that  he  was  a  Unitarian.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  contend  about  his  sentiments.  On  whichever  side 
he  may  stand,  his  opinion  will  not  affect  the  question. 
If  he  believed  a  plurality  in  the  divine  nature  he  will 
add  only  one  to  the  long  list  of  fathers,  who  for  three 
centuries  believed  the  same.  If  he  held  only  to  an 
allegorical  Trinity,  as  some  contend  that  he  did,  he 
was  one  of  those,  who  appeared  to  adhere  more  closely 
to  his  system  of  philosophy  than  to  express  declara- 
tions of  scripture.  In  whichever  scale  he  falls,  his 
weio"ht  will  be  less  than  if  he  had  been  generally  cor- 
rect in  his  views  of  the  other  parts  of  Christianity. 
Speaking  of  Origen,  Mosheim  says,  "I  would  not  be- 
lieve this  witness  upon  his  oath,  vending  as  he  mani- 
festly does,  such  flimsy  lies." 

This  is  a  brief  view  of  the  opinions  of  the  most 
distinguished  fathers  of  the  three  first  centuries  con- 
cerning the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  especially  con- 
cernino-  the  nature  and  character  of  Jesus  Christ.  It 
appears  by  their  language  that  they  believed  he  was 
divine;  and  that  they  and  the  church  considered  those 
heretical,  who  denied  his  divinity.  This  appears  to 
be  the  testimony  of  the  friends  of  Christianity.  Let 
us  attend  to  the  testimony  of  some  of  its  early  ene- 
mies, so  that  by  the  mouth  of  both  witnesses  the 
subject  may  be  well  established. 


RESPECTING    JESUS    CHRIST.  24T 

Pliny,  It  is  well  known,  was  a  bitter  enemy  of  the 
Christians.  In  his  letter  to  Trajan,  early  in  the  sec- 
ond century,  he  writes  thus:  "And  this  was  the 
account,  which  they  gave  me  of  the  nature  of  the 
religion  they  once  had  professed,  whether  it  deserves 
the  name  of  crime  or  error,  that  they  were  accustomed 
on  a  certain  day  to  meet  before  day  light,  and  to  repeat 
among  themselves  an  hymn  to  Christ,  as  to  a  God,  and 
to  bind  themselves  by  an  oath  with  an  obligation  of 
not  committing  any  wickedness,"  «fec.  This  account 
of  the  practice  of  Christians  was  given  to  Pliny  by 
some  apostate  Christians.  This  account  clearly  shews 
that  the  Christians  of  that  time  tendered  divine  honors 
to  Jesus  Christ.  Their  credibility  is  not  invalidated 
by  their  being  apostates.  They  had  been  with  the 
Christians.  They  knew  their  practice;  and  it  appears 
they  would  have  no  temptation  to  make  a  false  state- 
ment on  this  point. 

Lucian,  another  enemy  of  Christianity,  belongs  to 
the  second  century.  He  was  remarkable  for  his  sar- 
casm. In  his  account  of  Peregrinus  he  speaks  thus 
of  Christians:  "However,  these  people  adore  that 
great  Person,  who  had  been  crucified  in  Palestine,  as 
being  the  first  who  taught  men  that  religion. — Since 
they  separated  from  us,  they  persevere  in  rejecting 
the  gods  of  the  Grecians,  and  ivoi'shipping  that  deceiv- 
er, who  was  crucified."  This  is  another  evidence  that 
Christians  in  the  second  century  gave  divine  honors  to 
Jesus  Christ. 

Celsus  wrote  near  the  close  of  the  second  century. 
Infidelity  never,  perhaps,  appeared  with  greater  ma- 
lignity than  in  this  man.  A  few  quotations  from  him 
will  shew  what  was  then  understood  by  Christians 
that  Christ  pretended  to  be,  and  what  they  understood 
that  he  really  was.  "Christ  was  privately  educated, 
and  served  for  hire  in  Egypt;  got  acquainted  with 
miraculous  arts  there,  returned,  and  for  those  miracles, 
declared  himself  God.  Why  should  you,  when  an  in- 
fant, be  carried  into  Egypt,  lest  you  should  be  mur- 


248         OPINIONS    OF    THE    CHRISTIAN    FATHERS,  &C. 

dered?  God  should  not  fear  being  put  to  death.  You 
say  that  God  was  sent  to  sinners,  &c.  He  had  no 
reason  to  fear  any  mortal  now,  after  he  died,  and  as 
you  say  he  was  a  God."  These  quotations  prove 
that  Christians  in  the  latter  part  of  the  second  cen- 
tury believed  that  Christ  made  himself  God;  and  that 
they  also  believed  that  he  was  God. 

The  testimony  of  Porphyry  is  similar  to  that  of 
Celsus.  He  wrote  in  the  third  century.  "Men  won- 
der now,  (said  he)  that  distempers  have  seized  the 
city  so  many  years,  iEsculapius  and  the  other  gods  no 
longer  dwelling  among  them;  for  since  Jesus  was  hon- 
ored, no  one  has  received  any  public  benefit  from  the 
gods."  Porphyry  tells  the  following  story:  "A  person 
asked  Apollo  how  to  make  his  wife  relinquish  Chris- 
tianity? It  is  easier  perhaps,  replied  the  oracle,  to 
write  on  water,  or  to  fly  into  the  air,  than  to  reclaim 
her.  Leave  her  in  her  folly  to  hymn  in  a  faint  mourn- 
ful voice  the  dead  God,  who  publicly  suffered  death 
from  judges  of  singular  wisdom." 


ON   THE    ATONEMENT   OF    CHRIST. 


"The  Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all," 
Isaiah  53:6.  It  is  important  to  know  the  design  and 
elFects  of  the  sulTerings  of  Jesus  Christ.  Though  the 
Scriptures  appear  to  be  full  and  explicit  on  this  sub- 
ject, there  is  no  inconsiderable  difference  of  opinion 
respecting  it.  The  doctrine  of  the  atonement  is  of 
the  fir^t  importance,  whether  it  be  viewed  in  relation 
to  the  moral  condition  of  man,  or  in  relation  to  the 
nafure  and  character  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 

T'to  Creator  made  mankind  moral  agents,  and  he 
gave  them  a  law  for  the  regulation  of  their  conduct. 
This  law  required  perfect  obedience;  and  it  threat- 
ened punishment  for  every  transgression.  Whatever 
may  be  the  difference,  in  respect  to  the  number  of 
God's  commands  in  different  ages  of  the  world,  they 
are  of  one  nature;  they  require  obedience,  and  they 
threaten  punishment  for  every  offence.  If,  in  one 
age  of  the  world,  the  penalty  of  the  law  was  ever- 
lasting puriishment,  it  was  the  same  in  every  age. 

We  look  over  this  world,  and  we  find  that  it  is  a 
province  of  divine  government;  and  that  it  is  a  rebel- 
lious province.  They  have  violated  the  law  of  their 
divine  Sovereign;  forfeited  the  reward  of  righteous- 
ness; and  incurred  the  penal  consequences  of  trans- 
gression. If  the  law  have  its  natural  course,  the 
threatened  punishment  will  be  inflicted  upon  every 
transgressor;  and  the  whole  race  of  man  will  suffer 
the  vengeance  of  God  for  ever.  If  the  divine  law  b« 
32 


250  ON   THE    ATONEMENT    OF    CHRIST. 

just  and  good,  its  honor  would  be  supported  in  this 
way  by  its  own  provisions.  But  we  learn  from  the 
general  dealings  of  God  with  this  world,  and  from  his 
revealed  word,  that  mercy  is  an  attribute  of  his  nature; 
that  he  is  benevolent  to  sinful  man;  that  he  delighteth 
not  in  the  death  of  sinners.  A  question  naturally  rises 
here;  how  can  God  exercise  both  justice  and  mercy 
in  relation  to  the  same  subjects  of  his  government? 
If  they  be  entirely  obedient,  justice  gives  them  the 
rewards  of  righteousness.  If  they  transgress,  justice 
consigns  them  to  the  threatened  penalty.  In  either 
case  there  is  no  mercy.  The  holy  and  the  rebellious 
angels  are  both  under  the  influence  of  the  justice  of 
God. 

When  the  Creator  saw  human  nature,  the  work- 
manship of  his  hand,  despoiled  of  its  moral  excellence, 
he  was  disposed  to  shew  mercy,  to  bestow  favor. 
But  how  this  could  be  done  consistently  with  the 
claims  of  justice,  and  with  the  validity  of  the  divine 
law,  could  not,  probably,  be  discovered  by  the  greatest 
efforts  of  created  mtelligence.  If  pardon  were  con- 
ferred upon  every  transgressor,  without  any  consider- 
ation, the  law  would  have  no  force;  it  would  impose 
no  restraint;  it  would  be  merely  advisory,  but  not 
authoritative.  Subjects  would  yield  to  every  impulse 
of  their  base  passions,  having  no  ground  to  fear  any 
pernicious  consequences.  If  part  were  pardoned 
without  any  consideration,  it  would  proportionately 
diminish  the  force  of  the  divine  law.  Every  one 
would  hope  that  he  might  belong  to  the  favored 
number,  and  much  restraint  from  transgression  would 
be  taken  off.  In  either  case  sin  would  not  appear 
very  heinous;  nor  would  it  appear  to  be  very  offensive 
to  God.  The  divine  government  would  not  appear 
with  great  majesty  in  the  sight  of  men.  Sin  would 
abound  much  more  than  it  does  at  present;  and  this 
would  not  be  calculated  to  prepare  subjects  for  the 
holy  services  and  enjoyments  of  the  heavenly  state. 


ON    THE    ATONEMENT    OP    CHRIST.  2S1 

If  God  should  forgive  sinners  on  the  ground  of  their 
suffering  a  certain  term  of  punishment,  it  would  be  on 
the  principle  of  justice  or  mercy.  If  it  were  on  the 
principle  of  justice,  it  would  follow  that  as  sin  deserved 
but  a  limited  punishment,  it  was  a  finite  evil.  This 
view  of  it  would  comparatively  diminish  its  guilt,  and 
it  would  diminish  the  dignity  of  the  divine  character 
and  government,  against  which  it  was  committed.  If 
God  should  abate  his  threatened  punishment,  either 
in  degree,  or  in  duration,  on  the  ground  of  mercy,  he 
would  manifest,  comparatively,  less  abhorrence  of  sin; 
he  would  diminish  the  dignity  of  his  character  and 
the  efficacy  of  his  law  and  authority.  If  sin  be  an 
infinite  evil  and  deserves  a  proportionate  [)unishment, 
a  point  in  duration  will  never  arrive,  in  which  the 
transgressor  can  claim  exemption  from  further  suffer- 

By  some  it  is    maintained   that   repentance  is  the 
ground,  on  which  pardon  is  bestowed  upon  the  guilty. 
It   is   admitted,  that   under  the   present  economy  of 
divine  government,  sin  is  forgiven  on  the  condition  of 
the  repentance  of  the  transgressor.     But   repentance 
is  not  the   procuring  cause  of  his   forgiveness.     The 
divine  law  requires  perfect  obedience;  and  it  declares 
that  "cursed  is  every  one,   who  continueth  not  in  all 
things,  which  are  written   in  the  book   of  the  law   to 
do  them."     It  makes  no  abatement  of  its  requisitions; 
and   it   makes  no   provision  for   exemption   from   its 
penalty  on  any  condition  whatever.     If  a  transgressor 
repents,    his  act   of  penitence  comes   not    within  its 
scope.     Sorrow  for  sin  makes  no  satisfaction  to  the 
violated  law.     It   makes  no  remuneration  to  the  one 
offended,  or  injured.      Were  transgressors  pardoned 
solely  on  the  ground  of  their  repentance,  the  requisi- 
tions of  the   law  vvould  be  diminished;  its  authority 
and  efficacy  would   be   weakened,   and   proportionate 
encouragement  vvould  be  given  to  transgression.    But 
it  has  been  maintained  that  it   might   be  reasonably 
expected   that  God   would  forgive  on  the  ground  of 


252  ON   THE   ATONEMENT   OP   CHRIST. 

repentance;  and  that  this  has  been  a  prevailing  senti- 
ment of  the  nations  of  the  earth.  But  this  is  not  fact. 
This  conclusion  would  not  be  made  from  anj  analogy 
whatever.  The  civil  law  does  not  grant  pardon  to  a 
culprit  in  consequence  of  his  repentance.  It  requires 
that  the  penalty  be  inflicted;  so  that  no  one  should  be 
encouraged  to  transgress.  If  a  man  be  injured  by  his 
fellow  creature  in  his  person,  property  or  character, 
will  he  be  satisfied  merely  with  the  repentance  of  the 
offender?  Will  he  not  require  an  equivalent  for  the 
damages,  which  he  has  sustained?  A  restitution  of 
property  unjustly  taken,  and  eye  for  eye,  tooth  for 
tooth,  and  blood  for  blood,  were  part  of  the  divine 
law,  which  was  established  on  principles  of  strict 
justice.  Remuneration  for  injuries,  when  it  is  practi- 
cable has  always  been  considered  a  prerequisite  for 
acceptance  of  repentance.  As  mankind  could  make 
no  recompense  to  the  divine  Sovereign  for  the  offences 
they  had  offered  him,  they  could  not  infer  that  their 
repentance  would  secure  them  the  forgiveness  of  their 
God.  It  is  a  well  known  fact,  that  heathen  nations 
generally,  if  not  universally,  have  adopted  the  expe- 
dient of  sacrifices  to  appease  their  offended  deities; 
which  they  would  not  have  done,  had  they  believed 
that  repentance  only  would  have  rendered  them 
propitious.  The  more  dear  to  them  were  the  victims, 
which  they  offered,  the  more  pleasing,  they  imagined, 
would  be  their  sacrifices  to  their  incensed  deities. 
From  this  arose  the  practice  of  offering  human  victims. 
Some  offered  the  fruit  of  their  bodies  for  the  sins  of 
their  souls.  Whether  the  practice  of  sacrifice  was 
an  invention  of  the  human  mind  in  the  darkness  of 
paganism,  or  whether  it  was  handed  down  by  tradition 
from  the  first  ages,  it  is  certain,  that  mankind  gener- 
ally have  embraced  the  sentiment,  that  something 
beside  repentance  was  necessary  to  make  satisfaction 
for  sin. 

Nothing  occurs  under  the  Providence  of  God,  which 
warrants  a  belief  that  repentance  will  be  followed  by 


ON    THE    ATONEMENT    OP    CHRIST.  253 

forgiveness.      But    we    witness  many   things,   which 
would  naturally  lead  us  to  a  different  conclusion.  "For 
when  men  ruin   their  fortunes  by   extravagance,   or 
theii-  health  by  excess  in  sensual  indulgences,  it  is  well 
known  that  repentance  alone  doth  not  remove  these 
evil  consequences  of  their  follies  and  excesses.  Where- 
fore, if  in  the  present  life,  repentance  is  never  found 
of  itself  to  remove   the   temporal   evil  consequences, 
which   God   hath  connected  with   vice;  also,  if  men 
themselves    being  judges,   repentance    ought  not  to 
prevent  the  punishment  of  crimes  injurious  to  society, 
what  reason  hath   any   person,  from   the  constitution 
of  things,  to  expect  that  repentance  of  Itself  will  pre- 
vent those  penal  consequences,  which  God  may  have 
thought  fit  to  annex  to  vice  in  the  life  to  come.  Mu<  h 
more,   what  reason  hath  any   one,  from  the    present 
constitution  of  things,  to  expect  that  repentance  and 
reformation  will  put  the  sinner  into  the  condition,  he 
would  have  been  in,  if  he  had  always  preserved  his 
innocence."* 

It  appears  evident  that  a  transgressor  cannot  do 
any  thing,  which  will  make  satisfaction  to  the  divine 
law,   but  suffering  its  penalty.     If  he  repent  and   re- 
form,  and  Irom   the  present    time   render   a   perfect 
obedience  to  the  divine   precepts,  he  does  nothing  to 
cancel  the  demands,  which  stand  against  him  for  past 
transgression.     Present  obedience  is  but  present  duty. 
It  cannot  have  a  retrospective  influence.     If  one,  for 
any  given   time,  could  do  more  than  his  duty  for  that 
time,   he    might  acquire  a    surplus    of  righteousness, 
which   would  counterbalance  transgressions,  and  sup- 
ply past  deficiencies.     But  this  method  is  alike  con- 
trarient   to  reason  and  to  revelation.     It  requires  no 
arguments  to  prove  that  if  a  transgressor  cannot  save 
himself  from  the  penal  consequences  of  sin,  he  cannot 
save  others.     Should  a  created  being,  of  any  grade 
whatever  on  the  scale  of  creation  undertake  in   his 
behalf,   what  would  be  the   consequence?  However 

•  Macknight. 


254  ON    THE   ATONEMENT   0F  .CHRIST. 

great  his  capacity,  or  his  benevolence  might  be,  his 
own  obhgations  to  his  Creator,  should  be  proportion- 
ate to  his  degrees  of  ability.  It  would  be  required 
of  him,  on  his  own  account,  according  to  what  he  had. 
Suppose  he  should  volunteer  his  services  in  behalf  of 
this  sinful  world;  that  he  should  sutfer  in  their  stead. 
If  he  were  under  obligation  to  his  Creator  to  make 
this  sacrifice,  he  would  perform  only  his  own  duty;  he 
would  acquire  no  surplus  of  merit,  which  he  could 
transfer  to  the  necessitous.  If  he  were  not  under 
obligation  to  make  this  sacrifice,  there  is  no  evidence 
that  he  would  have  a  right  to  do  it;  and  if  he  had, 
there  is  no  evidence  that  the  divine  Sovereign  would 
accept  it  in  behalf  of  his  rebellious  subjects.  There 
is  no  evidence  that  it  would  be  equivalent,  in  the  sight 
of  the  law,  to  the  penalty,  which  it  had  threatened. 

If  God  design  to  shew  mercy  by  forbearing  to 
inflict  the  threatened  penalty  on  transgressors,  it  ap- 
pears to  be  necessary  that  something  should  be  done 
or  suffered,  which  would  as  fully  support  the  divine 
character,  and  render  the  divine  law  as  efficacious,  as 
if  it  had  its  natural  course,  and  subjected  every  offender 
to  its  curse.  Were  any  thing  less  than  this  substi- 
tuted, God's  abhorrence  of  sin  would  appear  to  be 
diminished;  transgression  would  be  encouraged;  and 
the  law,  of  course,  would  cease  to  produce  its  full  and 
designed  effect.  How  then  can  rebellious  subjects  be 
forgiven,  and  divine  authority  be  supported?  We  are 
wholly  indebted  to  divine  revelation  for  an  answer  to 
this  question.  We  are  taught  by  the  sacred  scrip- 
tures that  there  is  in  the  divine  Nature  a  plurality, 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit;  that  they  are  manifested 
in  the  work  of  redemption;  that  in  respect  to  office 
the  Father  holds  authority,  and  the  Son  and  Holy 
Spirit  are  subordinate;  that  this  method  is  adopted  by 
consent,  and  without  infringement  upon  the  divine  pre- 
rogatives of  either.  In  the  covenant  of  redemption 
it  was  stipulated  that  the  Son  should  have  the  hea- 
then for  his  inheritance,   and  the  uttermost  parts  of 


ON    THE    ATONEMENT    OF    CHRIST.  255 

the  earth  for  his  possession;  that  he  should  see  of  the 
travail  of  his  soul  and  be  satisfied;  and  that  he  should 
be  King  in  Zion.  The  Son,  in  view  of  what  he  had 
to  do,  and  of  what  he  was  to  receive,  said,  "Lo,  I 
come,  to  do  thy  will,  O  God."  Ever  since  the  apos- 
tasy, the  Son  has  been  the  medium  of  intercourse 
between  the  Father  and  the  human  race;  and  between 
the  human  race  and  the  Father.  He  has  ever  been 
the  medium,  through  which  every  blessing  has  been 
conferred  upon  this  fallen  world.  When  the  fulness 
of  the  time  (the  time  marked  out  by  prophecy) 
was  come,  the  Son  of  God  laid  aside,  concealed,  or 
emptied  himself  of  that  glory,  which  he  had  with  the 
Father,  was  born  of  a  woman;  was  made'flesh,  and 
took  upon  him  the  form  a  servant.  He  was  rich^  as 
Creator  and  Proprietor  of  the  world;  he  was  rick  in 
respect  to  his  divine  glory  in  heaven;  but  for  the  sake 
of  a  sinful  world  he  became  poor;  he  assumed  a  con- 
dition of  poverty,  not  having  where  to  lay  his  head; 
he  subjected  himself  to  a  state  of  humiliation.  From 
this  scriptural  representation  we  see  what  the  Son  of 
God  did  on  the  part  of  Divinity  for  the  support  of  the 
divine  law,  while  pardon  was  offered  to  sinners  on 
merciful  conditions.  In  this  state  of  abasement  the 
divine  Son  was  exposed  to  the  greatest  indignity;  and 
he  actually  received  the  grossest  insults,  and  the  most 
contemptuous  treatment  during  his  public  ministry  on 
earth.  In  the  exercise  of  divine  benevolence  he  came 
into  the  world  to  seek  and  to  save  that  which  was  lost. 
He  came  to  his  own^  the  people,  who  had  been  the 
objects  of  his  special  care,  support,  and  '  direction. 
He  addressed  them  in  the  most  affectionate  language. 
He  offered  them  the  greatest  of  blessings,  salvation, 
on  condition  of  faith  in  his  name.  He  appealed  to 
his  works,  his  divine  works,  to  prove  his  benevolent 
designs,  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God;  and  that  he  was 
able  to  bestow  what  he  had  offered.  But  they  returned 
him  ingratitude  and  abuse.  They  not  only  refused 
the    offers  of  his  mercy;  but  they  were   inveterate 


256  ON   THE   ATONEMENT   OP   CHRIST. 

against  him.  In  his  works  of  love  they  accused  him 
of  confederacy  with  Beelzebub.  When  it  was  pro- 
posed to  them  whether  they  would  give  preference 
to  him,  or  to  a  vile  malefactor,  they  with  one  consent 
gave  their  voice  in  favor  of  the  latter.  All  this 
ignominy  and  abasement  were  endured  by  the 
divine  Son. 

In  union   with   him   was   the   Son   of  man,  whose 
nativity  was  miraculous;  whose  life  was  holy,  harmless, 
undefiled;   who  received  the  Spirit  without  measure, 
and  was   anointed   with    the  Holy  Ghost,  and    with 
power.     So  intimate  was  the  union  of  the  Son  of  God 
with  the  man,  Christ  Jesus,  that  the  sufferings  of  the 
latter  upon  the  cross   were  a  sacrifice  of  vastly  more 
importance  than  the  sufferings  of  any  other  man.  The 
spotless    purity  of  his   nature,  the   perfection  of  his 
character,    the    extraordinary   unction  of    the    Holy 
Spirit,  which  he  received,  and  his  union  with  the  Son 
of  God,  rendered  him  peculiarly  dear  to  the  Father. 
Here  we  have  at  one  vjew  the  constituent  parts  of  the 
atonement,  viz.  the  humiliation  of  the  Son  of  God,  and 
the  sufferings  of  the  Son  of  man.     These  parts   ought 
to    be   viewedT  so  far    distinctly,  that  their    different 
values  may  appear;  and  they  ought   to  be   viewed  so 
far  unitedly,  as  they  are  the  acts,  or  sufferings  of  one 
and  the  same  Mediator.     If  the  Son  of  God  humbled 
himself  by  union  with  the  Son  of  man,  the  Son  of  man 
was  exalted  by  the  same  union:  and  there  arose  a 
reciprocal   influence  from   this   mysterious  connexion. 
We  must  cautiously  avoid  any  hypothesis,  or  language, 
which  seems  to  blend  or  confound  the  two  natures  of 
Jesus  Chrir.t;    which  seems  to  attribute  a  suffering  of 
painful  sensations  to  his  divinity,  or  a  communication 
of  divine    properties  to   his  humanity.      Wlien  it   is 
represented  that  the    Word  was  made  flesh,  that  the 
second  Jldam  was   the  Lord  from    heaven,   that  he, 
who  expired  upon  the  cross  was  the  Lord  of  glory, 
that  the  Son  of  man  would  ascend  up  where  he  was 
before,    we  are   not  to  understand   that  divinity  was 


ON    THE, ^ATONEMENT    OP    CHRIST.  257 

converted  into  humanity,  or  that  humanity  was  con- 
verted into  divinity;  or  that  either  nature  sustained 
the  least  deo^ree  of  chanj^e.  But  this  manner  of 
expression  conveys  the  idea  of  the  intimate  connexion 
of  his  two  natures;  and  during  his  incarnate  state,  the 
mention  of  one  involves  the  other,  and  by  implication, 
the  same  things  may  be  predicated  of  each.  The 
Scriptures  use  the  same  mode  of  expression,  in  relation 
to  the  material  and  immaterial  part  of  man.  They 
predicate  of  his  soul  what  belongs  to  his  body,  and 
they  predicate  of  his  body  what  belongs  to  his  soul. 
(See   Ez.  18:20.   Matt.  16:17.) 

Whatever  degree  of  dignity  and  capacity  was 
added  to  the  Son  of  man,  by  the  peculiar  union  of  thcj 
Son  of  God,  he  was  still  human  and  limited  in  all  his 
powers.  The  siiTferings,  which  he  endured  on  the 
cross,  were  human  sufferings;  and,  by  their  very  nature, 
were  limited  in  degree.  But  if  we  add  to  this,  the 
abasement  of  the  divine  Son,  which  is  unspeakably 
more  important,  there  will  appear  to  be  no  deficiency 
in  the  extent  or  efficacy  of  the   atonement. 

If  these  are  the  constituent  parts,  or  the  matter  of 
the  atonement,  there  is  no  ground  for  the  objection, 
that  it  was  made  wholly  by  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  and 
that  it  is  limited  in  its  nature  and  in  its  value.  Let  it 
be  kept  in  view  that  the  object  of  the  atonement  is  to 
support  divine  authority,  and  express  divine  abhorrence 
of  sin  as  fully  as  if  the  law  had  its  natural  course,  and 
mankind  suffered  its  penal  consequences.  When  it  is 
brought  into  the  estimate  that  the  Son  of  God  was 
divine;  that  he  was  infinitely  dear  to  the  Father;  that 
in  obedience  to  his  will  he  volutarily  sustained  the 
deepest  degree  of  humiliation;  and  that  the  Son  of 
man,  who  was  in  the  nearest  and  most  endearing  con- 
nexion with  himself,  suffered  death  of  the  most  igno- 
minious and  painful  kind,  it  appears  that  the  law  was 
magnified  and  made  honorable,  while  forgiveness  of  sin 
was  ofTered  to  transgressors  on  merciful  conditions.  It 
appears  that  this  substitution  has  expressed  as  great 
33 


258  ON    THE    ATONEMENT    OF    CHRIST. 

regard  for  the  law,  and  as  great  disapprobation  of  sin, 
as  if  the  whole  race  of  man  had  remained  under  its 
curse,  without  anj  provision  for  their  deliverance. 

Whj  might  not  the  Deity  pardon  transgressors 
without  a  sacrifice,  as  well  as  pardon  them  on  the 
ground  of  a  sacrifice  made  principally  by  himself?  It 
is  not  our  province  to  assign  reasons  for  all  the  dealings 
of  the  Most  High;  nor  for  the  peculiar  method,  which 
he  has  adopted  in  the  scheme  of  redemption.  But  it 
must  be  considered  that,  in  the  economy  of  grace,  the 
Father  holds  authority;  and  the  Son  is  subordinate, 
and  subjected  to  his  control;  and  that  this  is  the 
ground  of  the  covenant,  which  makes  provision  for 
the  salvation  of  man.  Of  course,  the  Son  might  do 
that  in  behalf  of  the  human  race,  which  iflight  be 
acceptable  to  the  Father,  while  he  made  them  offers 
of  mercy.  If  there  "Were  simple  unity  in  the  divine 
Nature,  it  appears  that  this  method,  the  method  of 
sacrifice,  would  be   impracticable. 

Should  God  grant  pardon,  in  a  single  instance,  with- 
out an  atonement,  he  might,  on  the  same  principle, 
forgive  others  to  any  extent;  and  mankind  would  take 
encouragement  to  violate  the  divine  law  with  hope  of 
impunity.  But  this  consequence  does  not  follow  from 
the  atonement,  as  it  is  brought  to  our  view  in  the 
Gospel.  Though  there  is  a  propitiation  made  suffi- 
cient for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world,  yet  no  one  will 
receive  pardon  except  on  the  condition  of  repentance 
and  reformation.  The  wicked  can  find  no  encourage- 
ment on  this  ground,  to  continue  in  sin;  for  while  they 
retain  their  habits  of  iniquity,  they  are  as  fully  under 
the  penal  threatenings  of  the  law  as  if  no  sacrifice  had 
been  made;  and  they  have  no  interest  in  pardoning 
mercy,  nor  can  they  have,  while  they  persevere  in 
transgression.  There  is  as  much  necessity  of  holiness 
of  heart  and  life,  under  the  provisions  of  the  Gospel, 
as  if  righteousness  and  justification  were  by  the  law. 
The  design  and  work  of  Jesus  were  not  only  to  save 
people  from  the  penalty  due  to  their  sins,  but  to  save 


O^    THE    ATONEMENT    OF    CHRIST.  259 

them  from  the  practice  and  guilt  of  them.  For  this 
purpose  he  has  authority,  by  the  covenant  of  redemp- 
tion, to  send  the  Holy  Spirit  into  the  world  to  conviiice 
of  sin,  of  righteousness,  and  of  judgment;  to  chan^^^e 
the  disposition  of  the  human  heart;  to  sanctify  tlie 
affections  and  to  keep  the  subjects  of  his  effectual 
operations  through  faith  unto  salvation.  This  appears 
to  be  necessary,  in  order  to  prepare  them  to  receive 
the  remission  of  their  sins.  For  if  they  were  pardoned 
in  a  slate  of  impenitence,  and  rebellion  against  divine 
authority,  it  would  frustrate  alike  the  design  of  the 
law  and  of  the  atonement. 

Inseparably  connected  with  the  sacrifice  of  Christ, 
is  his  obedience.  In  his  abasement  and  sufferings,  he 
was  submissive  to  the  will  of  the  Father.  He  yielded 
a  perfect  obedience  to  the  divine  law;  and  proved 
that  it  was  holy,  just  and  good.  He  gave  as  full  and 
clear  evidence  in  favor  of  the  divine  commands,  as 
mankind  would  have  done  by  a  perfect  observance  of 
them.  Had  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  made  only  an 
expiation  for  sin,  he  would  only  have  saved  them  from 
suffering;  he  would  not  have  procured  for  them  the 
reward  of  righteousness.  But  he  did  not  leave  the 
work  of  salvation  unfinished.  He  is  "the  Lord,  our 
Righteousness.  He  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  right- 
eousness." He  has  suffered  the  penal  part,  and  he 
has  obeyed  the  preceptive  part  of  the  law  for  the 
human  race.  He  has  fulfilled  the  law;  and  he  main- 
tains its  dignity  and  efficacy,  while  he  offers  pardon 
and  reward  to  those,  who  believe  on  his  name.  On 
this  plan  the  faith  of  men  is  accounted  to  them  for 
righteousness;  and  God  is  just,  while  he  justifies  them. 
Had  any  created  being,  of  whatever  grade,  proposed 
to  substitute  his  obedience  for  the  obedience  of  the 
human  race,  so  that  his  righteousness  might  be 
accounted  to  them,  could  he  have  done  it?  Could  he 
have  performed  more  than  his  own  duty,  so  that  he 
could  have  had  a  surplus  of  righteousness,  which 
might   be   set  to  their  account;  aod  for  which  thej 


260        ON  THE  ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST. 

might  receive  the  reward  of  everlasting  blessedness? 
Were  revj^ard  granted  on  this  ground,  would  not  the 
law  greatly  suffer;  and  would  not  people  set  a  small 
value  upon  a  righteousness  and  its  reward,  which 
might  be  obtained  at  so  low  a  rate? 

If  we  examine  the  ancient  sin  offering,  and  view  it 
in  connexion  with  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ, 
we  shall  obtain  light  on  the  subject.  The  type  and 
the  antitype  unite  their  influence  to  lead  us  into  the 
knowledge  of  a  truth  the  most  interesting  to  a  fallen 
world.  "The  Hebrews  had  properly  but  three  sorts 
of  sacrifices;  the  burnt  offering,  which  was  wholly 
consumed,  only  the  priest  had  the  benefit  of  the  skin, 
Lev.  7:8.  The  sacrifice  for  sin,  or  expiation  for  him, 
who  had  fallen  into  any  offence  against  the  law,  Lev. 
4.  The  peace  offering,  which  was  offered  voluntarily, 
in  praise  to  God,  or  to  ask  favors.  Sic.  Lev.  7:3  1,34." 

The  trespass  offering  was  an  expiatory  sacrifice. 
The  law  concerning  this  was  explicit.  ''If  a  soul  sin 
and  commit  a  trespass  against  the  Lord,  and  lie  unto 
his  neighbor,  in  that  which  was  delivered  him  to  keep; 
— or  have  found  that  which  was  lost,  and  lieth  con- 
cerning it,  and  sweareth  falsely, — he  shall  even  restore 
it  in  the  principal,  and  shall  add  the  fifth  part  more 
thereto;  and  he  shall  bring  his  trespass  offering  unto 
the  Lord,  a  ram  without  blemish  out  of  the  flock.— 
And  the  priest  shall  make  an  atonement  for  him  before 
the  Lord,  and  it  shall  be  forgiven  him  for  any  thing  of 
all  he  hath  done  in  trespassing  therein."  (See  Leviti- 
cus 6:)  For  a  sin  of  a  different  kind  the  transgres- 
sor was  required  to  "bring  his  trespass  offering  unto 
the  Lord;  and  the  priest  shall  make  atonement  for  him 
with  the  ram  of  the  trespass  offering  before  the  Lord 
for  the  sin,  which  he  hath  done;  and  the  sin  which  he 
hath  done  shall  be  forgiven  him,"  Lev.  19:21,22. 

When  Aaron  and  his  sons  were  consecrated  to  the 
priest's  office,  Moses  brought  a  bullock  for  a  sin  offer- 
ing; and  they  laid  their  hands  upon  the  head  of  the 
bullock,  and  he  slew  it  for  a  sin  offering.  (See  Lev.  8:) 


ON  THE  ATONEMENT  OP  CHRIST.         261 

After  the  death  of  Aaron's  sons,  it  was  an  established 
ordinance  for  him  and  his  successors  to  offer  a  sin  offer- 
ing once  a  year  for  himself  and  for  the  sins  ot  the 
people.  He  sacrificed  a  bullock  to  make  atonement 
for  his  own  sins.  For  the  people  he  took  two  goats; 
one  he  sacrifi -ed;  and  over  the  other,  with  his  hands 
on  its  head,  he  confessed  their  iniquities,  putting  them 
upon  the  head  of  the  goat;  and  then  he  sent  it,  bear- 
ing their  sins,  into  the  wilderness.  (See  Leviticus  16:) 
This  was  the  law  for  making  atonement  for  the  sins 
of  the  priest,  and  for  the  sins  of  the  people. 

Had  we  no  further  information  on  this  subject  than 
what  we  derive  from  the  law  of  sacrifices,  we  could 
discover  no  wisdom  in  their  institution;  no  efficacy  in 
the  blood  of  beasts;  no  connexion  between  the  sacri- 
fice of.  animals  and  the  forgiveness  of  sin.  But  the 
apostle  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  gives  us 
the  information  on  this  subject,  Vv'hich  we  need.  He 
S[)eaks  of  the  legal  sacrifices;  contrasts  them  with  the 
sacrifice  of  Christ;  and  shews  the  vast  superiority  of 
the  latter.  "The  law  having  a  shadow  of  good  things 
to  come,  and  not  the  very  image  of  the  things,  can 
never  with  those  sacrifices,  which  they  offered  year 
by  year  continually,  make  the  comers  thereunto  per- 
fect. For  then  would  they  not  have  ceased  to  be 
offered;  because  that  the  worshippers  once  purged, 
should  have  had  no  more  conscience  of  sins.  But  in 
those  sacrifices  there  is  a  remembrance  again  made  of 
sins  every  year.  For  it  is  not  possible  that  the  blood 
of  bulls  and  of  goats  should  take  away  sius.  But 
Christ  being  come  an  high  Priest  of  good  things  to 
come,  by  a  greater  and  more  perfect  labernacle,  not 
made  with  hands,  that  is  to  say,  not  of  this  building; 
neither  by  the  blood  of  goats  and  calves,  but  by  his 
own  blood,  he  entered  in  once  into  the  holy  place, 
having  obtained  eternal  redemption  for  us.  For  if 
the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  and  the  ashes  of  an 
heifer,  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the  puri- 
fying of  the  flesh;  how  much  more  shall  the  blood  of 


262  ON   THE    ATONEMENT    OF   CHRIST. 

Christ,  who,  through  the  eternal  Spirit,  oflfered  him-' 
self  without  spot  to  God,  purge  your  conscience  from 
dead  works  to  serve  the  living  God? — Nor  yet  that 
he  should  offer  himself  often,  as  the  high  priest  enter- 
eth  into  the  holy  place  every  year  with  blood  of  oth- 
ers. For  then  must  he  often  have  suffered  since  the 
foundation  of  the  world,  but  now  once  in  the  end  of 
the  world,  hath  he  appeared  to  put  away  sin  by  the 
sacrifice  of  himself."  (See  Heb.  9:  and  10:) 

From  a  contrast  of  the  Jewish  sin  offerings  with  the 
sacrifice  of  the  high  priest  under  the  gospel  dispen- 
sation, we  perceive  that  the  former  were  but  a 
shadow  of  good  things  to  come;  that  they  were  a 
representation  of  the  sacrifice  of  the  Lamb  of  God; 
and  that  they  derived  all  their  meaning,  and  all  their 
efficacy  from  this  connexion.  If  the  legal  sin  offerings 
were  appointed  to  be  efficacious  in  procuring  remission 
of  sin,  much  more  would  the  sacrifice  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  in  which  all  others  terminated,  lay  a 
foundation  for  the  pardon  of  sinners.  Without  this 
allusion,  the  Hebrew  ritual  appears  as  unmeaning  and 
unavailing  as  the- superstitious  rites  of  the  heathen. 

If  the  Jews,  as  a  nation,  had  waxed  gross,  and 
through  their  carnal  ordinances  did  not  discern  spir- 
itual things,  there  is  no  reasonable  doubt  that  the 
Jewish  saints  viewed  the  trespass  offering  as  an  expi- 
atory sacrifice,  looking  forward  to  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Lamb  of  God,  and  drawing  all  its  import  and  all  its 
value  from  that  source.  The  ancient  prophecies  shed 
some  glimmering  rays  upon  this  one,  great  sacrifice. 
The  saints  by  faith  caught  the  light;  and  like  Abra- 
ham, they  saw  the  day  of  Christ,  and  were  glad.  If, 
at  the  time  the  Messiah  was  upon  earth,  the  principal 
part  of  the  Jewish  nation  had  no  idea  of  a  suffering 
Savior,  there  is  no  doubt  there  were  some  of  that 
nation,  who  had  correct  views  of  the  prophecies  re- 
lating to  his  incarnation  and  death;  and  had  faith  in 
the  divine  promises.  Caiphas,  the  high  priest,  though 
an  enemy  of  Jesus,  appeared  to  have  correct  views  of 


ON    THE    ATONEMENT    OF    CHRIST.  263 

the  design  of  his  sacrifice.  "It  is  expedient  for  us," 
said  he,  "That  one  man  should  die  for  the  people,  and 
that  the  whole  nation  perish  not. — He  prophesied 
that  Jesus  should  die  for  that  nation.  And  not  for 
that  nation  only,  but  that  also  he  should  gather 
together  in  one,  the  children  of  God,  that  were  scat- 
tered abroad." 

The  scriptures  very  fully  and  clearly  represent  the 
sufferings  of  Christ  to  be  a  sacrifice  for  sin.  "He 
was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  he  was  bruised 
for  our  iniquities,  the  chastisement  of  our  peace  was 
upon  him;  and  with  his  stripes  we  are  healed. — The 
Lord  hath  laid  on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all. — For  the 
transgression  of  my  people  was  he  stricken. — He  bare 
the  sin  of  many.  (See  Isaiah  53:)  This  is  my  blood 
of  the  new  testament,  which  is  shed  for  many  for  the 
remission  of  sins.  (Matt.  26:28.)  For  even  the  Son  of 
man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister, 
and  to  give  his  life  a  ranson  for  many.  (Mark  10:45.) 
Being  justified  freely  by  his  grace  through  the  re- 
demption, that  is  in  Christ  Jesus;  whom  God  hath  set 
forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through  faith  in  his  blood. 
(Rom.  3:24,25.)  Who  was  delivered  for  our  offences, 
and  was  raised  again  for  our  justification.  (Rom.  4:25.) 
For  when  we  were  yet  without  strength,  in  due  time 
Christ  died  for  the  ungodly. — But  God  commendeth 
his  love  toward  us,  in  that  while  we  were  yet  sinners, 
Christ  died  for  us.  Much  more  then,  being  now  jus- 
tified by  his  blood,  we  shall  be  saved  from  wrath 
through  him.  For  if  when  we  were  enemies,  we  were 
reconciled  to  God  by  the  death  of  his  Son;  much 
more,  being  reconciled,  we  shall  be  saved  by  his  life. 
(Rom.  5:6,8,9,10.)  For  even  Christ  our  passover  is 
sacrificed  for  us. — For  I  delivered  unto  you  first  of  all 
that  which  I  also  received,  how  that  Christ  died  for 
our  sins  according  to  the  scriptures.  (1  Cor.  5:7;  and 
15:3.)  For  he  hath  made  him  to  be  sin  for  us,  who 
knew  no  sin;  that  we  might  be  made  the  righteous- 
ness of  God  in  him.  (2  Cor.  5:21.)  In  whom  we  have 
redemption  through  his  blood,  even  the  forgiveness  of 


264  ON    THE    ATONEMENT   OF   CHRIST. 

sins.  (Col.  1:14.)  Who  gave  himself  a  ransom  for  all. 
(1  Tim.  2:6.)  Christ  was  once  offered  to  bear  the 
sins  of  many.  (Heb.  9:28.)  Forasmuch  as  ye  know 
that  ye  were  not  redeemed  with  corruptible  things, 
as  silver  and  gold; — but  with  the  precious  blood  of 
Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and  without  spot. 
(1  Peter,  1:18,19.)  He  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins; 
and  not  for  ours  only,  but  also  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world. — And  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for 
our  sins.  (1  John  2:2;  and  4:10.)  They  sung  a  new 
song,  saying,  Thou  art  worthy  to  take  the  book,  and 
to  open  the  seals  thereof;  for  thou  wast  slain,  and 
hast  redeemed  us  to  God  by  thy  blood."  (Rev.  5:9.) 
These  texts  and  many  more  of  similar  import,  clearly 
shew  that  Christ  was  offered  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin;  and 
that  in  consequence  of  his  propitiatory  offering,  trans- 
gressors may  receive  forgiveness.  If  these  passages 
do  not  convey  this  idea,  it  appears  to  be  impossible  to 
find  language,  which  will  convey  it. 

From  this  view  of  the  subject,  it  appears  that  Jesus 
Christ  has  made  an  atonement  for  sin,  and  that  this  is 
the  ground,  on  which  forgiveness  is  offered  to  trans- 
gressors, on  certain  merciful  conditions.  There  is  a 
manifest  distinction  between  the  meritorious,  or  pro- 
curing cause  of  pardon,  and  the  terms,  on  which  it 
may  be  received.  Because  the  law  is  magnified  and 
made  honorable  by  the  sufferings  and  obedience  of 
Christ,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  law  is  made  void; 
and  that  it  has  no  further  claims  upon  mankind.  Be- 
cause there  is  a  propitiation  made  for  the  sms  of  the 
whole  world,  it  does  not  follow  that  all  have  a  claim 
to  exemption  from  punishment;  or  that  all  will  be 
forgiven.  It  must  be  remembered  that  faith  and 
repentance,  on  the  part  of  the  transgressor,  are  exer- 
cises of  mind  and  heart,  which  are  indispensable  in 
order  to  receive  the  mercy  of  pardon.  The  atone- 
ment, on  the  part  of  Christ,  and  faith  and  repentance, 
on  the  part  of  the  transgressor,  are  set  forth  in  the 
Scriptures  to  be  absolutely  necessary  to  salvation. 


ON    THE   ATONEMENT   OF   CHRIST.  265 

When  one  only  is  mentioned  in  connexion  with  for- 
giveness, the  other  is  not  excluded,  but  implied,  or 
understood. 

The  atonement  originated  in  divine  mercy.  God 
was  angrj  with  the  wicked,  as  sinners.  But  as  the 
workmanship  of  his  hand,  as  intelligent  creatures, 
capable  of  serving,  honoring,  and  enjoying  him  for  ever, 
he  loved  them.  "Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved 
God,  but  that  he  loved  us.  We  love  him  because  he 
first  loved  us."  The  Father  was  not  moved,  by  the 
sacrifice  of  his  Son,  to  shew  mercy.  But  in  the  exer- 
cise of  his  mercy,  he  adopted  this  as  an  expedient,  by 
which  he  could  consistently  offer  pardon  to  his  rebel- 
lious subjects.  The  Father  and  Son  were  of  one 
mind  on  this  subject.  The  Father  was  willing  to  give 
up  his  Son  to  be  a  sacrifice  for  sin;  and  the  Son  was 
equally  willing  to  become  a  sacrifice,  so  that  salvation 
BQjght  be  offered  to  sinners. 

If  we  cannot  discover  any  natural  connexion  between 
the  suffering  and  obedience  of  one,  and  the  forgiveness 
and  reward  of  another,  our  want  of  discernment  forms 
no  argument  against  the  reality,  or  wisdom  of  this 
plan.  Many  things  occur  in  the  natural  and  moral 
world,  for  which  we  cannot  account;  and  whose  con- 
nexion we  cannot  discover.  In  civil  government, 
rulers  often  suffer  in  consequence  of  the  vices  of  their 
subjects;  and  subjects  often  receive  great  blessings  in 
consequence  of  the  wise  administration  of  their  rulers. 
In  families,  the  prudent  conduct  of  parents  proves  to 
be  a  great  blessing  to  their  children;  and  the  vicious 
practices  of  children  bring  great  sufferings  upon  their 
parents.  A  similar  connexion  runs  through  the  vari- 
ous grades  of  society.  In  many  instances,  great  natu- 
ral evils,  which  were  intended  as  such  by  their  authors, 
have  resulted  in  the  most  beneficial  effects.  If  this 
method  is  found  in  the  constitution  of  nature,  under 
the  administration  of  the  divine  Sovereign,  why  should 
not  the  same  principles  be  admitted  when  they  are 
found  in  the  scheme  of  redemption? 
34 


266        ON  THE  ATONEMENT  OP  CHRIST. 

The  greatness  of  the  atonement,  as  it  has  been 
exhibited,  is  no  evidence  that  it  was  not  appointed 
and  adopted  by  the  divine  Sovereign,  as  an  expedient 
for  the  salvation  of  this  sinful  world.  If  it  appear  to 
any  to  be  disproportionate  to  the  effects,  which  are 
designed  to  be  produced  by  it,  it  arises  from  ignorance 
of  the  worth  of  the  soul,  and  of  its  bearing  upon  the 
moral  government  of  God.  The  human  soul,  though 
of  limited  powers,  possesses  an  extensive  capacity. 
It  is  capable  of  continual  progression  in  knowledge  and 
enjoyment.  There  is  no  doubt  that  there  will  be  a 
point  in  eternity,  when  it  will  be  equal  in  its  faculties 
to  the  most  exalted  angel,  who  now  ministers  before 
God's  throne;  and  that  it  will  be  then  in  a  state  of 
progressive  improvement. 

If  it  were  an  object  unworthy  of  the  Son  of  God, 
to  humble  himself,  to  provide  salvation  for  such  an 
individual,  then  bring  to  view  the  first  human  pair 
with  the  whole  line  of  their  posterity,  diverging  into 
thousands  of  branches,  extending  to  thousands  of  gen- 
erations, and  spreading  over  the  breadth  of  the  whole 
earth.  View  this  extensive  province,  not  merely  once 
replenished  with  inhabitants,  but  peopled  thousands 
of  times,  and  removed  in  succession  to  another  world, 
to  receive  their  everlasting  destination.  View  this 
multitude,  which  no  man  can  number,  and  say,  is  not 
their  salvation  an  object  of  immense  magnitude?  Is  it 
not  an  object  worthy  of  God  to  accomplish?  If  it 
were  not  inconsistent  with  the  dignity  of  the  divine 
JBeing,  to  form  and  support  such  a  species  of  beings 
as  mankind,  it  cannot  be  inconsistent  with  his  dignity 
to  make  provision  for  their  reformation,  for  their  for- 
giveness, and  for  their  future  blessedness.  Besides, 
the  atonement  of  Christ  in  connexion  with  the  economy 
of  redemption,  is  made  known  to  the  angelic  hostj 
and  probably  it  is  disclosed  to  other  systenjs  of  intelli- 
gences amidst  the  immensity  of  creation;  and  it  may 
serve  as  a  link  in  the  chain  of  divine  government  to 
connect  and  support  its  various  parts. 


ON  THE  ATONEMENT  OP  CHRIST.        267 

When  we  take  into  consideration  the  constituent 
parts  of  the  atonement,  its  effect  upon  the  moral  con- 
dition of  man,  and  upon  divine  government,  it  appears 
that  no  created  being  was  adequate  to  this  work. 

It  is  presumable  that  the  first  offerings  and  sacri- 
fices were  instituted  by  divine  authority.  In  a  history 
so  concise  as  that  of  Moses,  there  can  be  only  a 
sketch  of  the  most  prominent  events.  But  many 
truths  may  be  discovered  by  induction.  Cain  and 
Abel  brought  their  respective  offerings  unto  the  Lord. 
It  is  not  improbable  that  sacrifices  were  made  before 
this  time.  But  these  were  recorded  because  they 
were  accompanied  with  peculiar  and  important  cir- 
cumstances. What  could  have  induced  these  broth- 
ers, if  they  were  not  required,  to  make  these  offer- 
ings to  the  Lord?  If  they  presented  them  as  gifts  to 
the  great  Proprietor  of  all,  to  avert  his  displeasure,  or 
render  him  propitious,  analogy  fails  to  give  it  support. 
They  then  held  their  property  in  common;  and,  of 
course,  they  did  not  know  by  experience  what  effect 
gifts  would  produce  upon  their  fellow  beings;  and 
consequently  they  would  find  it  difficult  to  infer  what 
effects  they  would  produce  in  relation  to  the  Creator. 
The  circumstance,  that  Abel  was  accepted  in  his 
offering,  is  an  evidence  that  this  rite  was  of  divine 
institution.  It  can  hardly  be  supposed  that  fallen 
creatures  were  left  to  invent  for  themselves  a  method 
of  worship,  or  of  sacrifice;  and  it  is  equally  impro- 
bable that  they  should  invent  a  method,  which  would 
be  pleasing  to  the  Lord.  "By  faith  Abel  offered 
unto  God  a  more  excellent  sacrifice  than  Cain."  He 
had  faith  in  the  divine  promise:  "the  Seed  of  the 
Woman  shall  bruise  the  serpent's  head."  Through  his 
sacrifice  of  beasts  he  looked  forward  to  the  sacrifice 
of  the  promised  Seed.  As  Abel  discerned  this  con- 
nexion between  the  sacrifice  and  the  divine  promise, 
there  is  no  reasonable  doubt  that  this  sacrifice  was 
instituted  by  divine  authority.  Further,  the  use  of 
flesh  was  not  given  to  man  till  after  the  flood.     It  is 


268  ON    THE    ATONEMENT    OF    CHRIST. 

not  probable,  therefore,  that  Abel  would  hare  dared 
to  take  away  the  life  of  animals,  even  for  sacrifice,  if 
he  had  not  been  commanded  by  God.  The  sacrifice 
of  animals  was  a  sin  offering;  and  when  Abel  made 
this  offiering  to  the  Lord,  he  was  conscious  of  his  guilt; 
he  had  confidence  in  the  divine  promise,  and  faith  in 
that  blood,  which  cleanseth  from  all  sin.  If  the  law 
respecting  sacrifices  was  not  given  in  a  formal  manner 
till  a  long  period  after  the  apostasy,  it,  by  no  means 
follows  that  they  were  not  of  divine  institution  during 
that  interval.  The  decalogue  was  not  communicated 
in  a  formal  manner  till  the  time  of  Moses.  But  there 
is  no  reasonable  doubt  that  every  one  of  the  ten  com- 
mands had  been  made  known  before;  and  were  as 
binding  as  they  were  afterward. 

It  is  not  probable  that  reason  invented  the  expedient 
of  sacrifice  for  sin.     Some  have  traced  it  to  this  origin, 
and  others  have   contended  that  the  doctrine  is  very 
unreasonable.     There  appears  to   be   no  moral   con- 
nexion  between   the   sin  of  one  and  the  suffering  of 
another;  nor    between  the  suffering  of  one  and  the 
forgiveness  of  another.    If  this  be  true,  how  have  sac- 
rifices generally   obtained  in  every  age  through   the 
world,  where  revelation  has  not  been  enjoyed.''  There 
is  no  reasonable  doubt  that  sacrifices  have  been  per- 
petuated by  tradition.    The  nations,  which  descended 
from  Noah,  were  acquainted  with  the  sacrifices  which 
God  had   instituted.      When  the    revelations  of  the 
divine  will  were  deposited  among  one  nation,  the  Jews, 
other  nations  still  retained  a  knowledge  of  sacrifices; 
and  this  knowledge  was  handed  down  from  one  gen- 
eration to  another.     In  addition  to  this,  many  heathen 
nations  were  acquainted  with  the  Jews,  and  with  their 
religion.     From   them  they  might  keep  in    remem- 
brance the  institution  of  sacrifices,  but  with  great  cor- 
ruptions.     It    appears  much  more    reasonable    that 
heathen  sacrifices  grew  out  of  Jewish,  or  patriarchal, 
than  that  these  were   engraffed  by  the  divine  hand 
upon  their's. 


ON    THE    ATONEMENT    OF    CHRIST.  269 

The  prevalence  of  sacrifices  among  heathen  nations 
generally,  if  not  universally,  affords  evidence  that  they 
are  conscious  of  guilt;  and  feel  the  necessity  of  an  ex- 
piation tor  sin.  If  they  believed  that  repentance  and 
reformation  would  secure  their  forgiveness  and  restore 
them  to  the  favor  of  their  offended  God,  they  would 
not  seek  pardon  by  sacrifice.  But  as  they  have  ever 
sought  it  in  this  way,  it  follows  that  unassisted  reason 
never  taught  them  that  they  could  obtain  pardon 
without  this  expedient. 

It  appears  by  the  laws  which  were  communicated 
to  Moses  concerning  sacrifices,  that  the  trespass  offer- 
ing was  of  an  expiatory  nature.  When  people  had 
transgressed  the  commandment  of  the  Lord,  they 
were  commanded  to  bring  an  animal  for  a  trespass 
offering;  to  lay  their  hand  upon  its  head  and  slay  it. 
The  priest  took  of  the  blood  with  his  finger  and  put 
it  upon  the  horns  of  the  altar;  and  poured  out  the 
blood  thereof  at  the  bottom  of  the  altar.  The  priest 
made  an  atonement  for  their  sin;  and  it  was  forgiven 
him.     See  Lev.  4:  5:  6: 

The  ceremony  respecting  the  scape  goat  is  a  strik- 
ing representation  of  the  transference  of  sin.  The 
transgressions  of  the  people  were  confessed  over  the 
goat;  put  upon  his  head;  and  he  bore  them  away 
into  the  wilderness.  By  this  method  atonement  was 
made  for  the  sins  of  the  people.  These  sacrifices, 
viewed  by  themselves,  appear  inefficacious  and  un- 
meaning. "In  those  sacrifices  there  is  a  remembrance 
again  made  of  sms  every  year.  For  it  is  not  possible 
that  the  blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats  should  take  away 
sins,"  Heb.  10:3,4.  But  when  these  sacrifices  are 
viewed  m  connexion  with  their  antitype,  they  appear 
significant  and  important.  The  apostle  Paul  con- 
trasts the  sacrifices  under  the  law  with  the  sacrifice  of 
Christ;  and  shews  most  clearly  that  the  latter,  both  in 
respect  to  victim  and  priest,  infinitely  exceeded  the 
former.  From  the  contrast  it  appears  that  the  Jew- 
ish sacrifices  were  types  of  Christ's  sacrifice;  and  that 


270         ON  THE  ATONEMENT  OF  CHRIST. 

from  connexion  with  it,  they  derived  all  their  import- 
ance. If  those  symbols,  in  connexion  with  the  thing 
prefigured,  were  ordained  to  make  a  propitiatory 
sacrifice  for  sin,  it  is  an  unavoidable  conclusion  that 
the  reality  itself  is   adequate  to  this  purpose. 

"He  is  the  propitiation  for  our  sins,"  &c.  1  John  2: 
2.  "The  word  ^iKcmixog  is  no  where  found  in  the  New 
Testament,  but  in  this  passage,  and  in  chap.  4:10.  But 
it  occurs  often  in  the  LXX  translation  of  the  Old 
Testament,  where  it  signifies  a  sacrifice  of  atonement. 
Thus  Lev.  6:6,7.  Numb.  5:8.  K^iog  iKctay^a  is  a  ram  for 
a  sin  offering.  And  Ezek.  44:27,  Tsi^oaCps^siv  iKu.ffy.ov  is, 
to  offer  a  sin  offering.  In  considering  the  death  of 
Christ  as  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  John,  like  the  other  apos- 
tles, followed  his  Master,  who  in  the  institution  of  his 
supper,  directed  his  disciples  to  consider  it,  as  designed 
to  bring  to  their  remembrance  his  blood,  shed  for  the 
many,  for  the  remissions  of  sins.     (Macknight.) 

"Whom  God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation," 
Rom.  3:25.  Whether  /Acjcvi?'ov  alludes  to  the  cover 
of  the  ark,  or  whether  it  expresses  the  propitiatory 
sacrifice  of  Christ,  its  import  is  the  same,  or  nearly 
the  same,  because  it  was  on  the  cover  of  the  ark,  or 
mercy  seat,  the  atonements  were  accepted,  and  par- 
dons were  dispensed.  Christ,  as  a  propitiatory  sacri- 
fice, was  represented  by  the  mercy  seat.  He,  "by  his 
atonement,  covered  our  sins,  and  bore  the  curse  for 
us;  standing  between  God  and  the  curse  of  the  law  for 
our  sakes,  that  God  might  look  on  the  law  through 
Christ,  as  fulfilled  by  him  on  our  behalf." 


ON  THE  HUMANITY  OF  CHRIST. 


Who  being  in  the  form  of  God, — was  made  in  the 
likeness  of  men,  Phil.  2:6,7.  Not  only  the  divinity,  but 
the  humanitif  of  Christ  has  been  denied.  So  mysteri- 
ous is  the  union  of  human  and  divine  nature,  that  at 
an  early  period  of  Christianity,  even  in  the  apostle's 
time,  seme  attributed  to  the  Savior  only  one  nature. 
One  sect  believed  him  to  be  only  human;  another 
believed  him  to  be  only  divine.  The  same  unscrip- 
tural  sentiments,  with  some  modifications,  have  been 
continued  till  the  present  day.  If  there  be  none  in 
the  present  age,  who  denies  that  the  Son  of  God  was 
united  with  any  degrees  of  humanity,  there  are  those, 
who  deny  that  the  body  of  Christ  was  animated  by 
a  human  soul.  As  it  is  designed  to  exhibit  a  general 
view  of  the  nature  and  character  of  the  Savior,  it  is 
necessary  to  consider  his  humanity. 

Christ  is  repeatedly  called  in  the  sacred  Scriptures 
man,  and  the  Son  of  man.  When  Peter  denied  his 
Lord,  he  called  him  a  man,  saying,  "I  know  not  the 
man.^''  When  the  centurion  witnessed  the  crucifixion 
of  Jesus,  he  exclaimed,  "Truly  this  man  was  the  Son 
of  God."  When  Pilate  expressed  his  opinion  respect- 
ing the  allegations  brought  against  Christ,  he  said,  "I 
find  no  fault  in  this  man."  The  Jews  called  Christ  a 
man.  They  accused  him  of  blasphemy,  saying,  "be- 
cause thou  being  a  man,  makest  thyself  God."  In 
these  and  other  instances,  Christ  is  called  a  man  by 
persons,  wlio  were  not  under  the  influence  of  divine 


272  ON   THE   HUMANITY     OF   CHRIST. 

inspiration.  They  spoke  of  him  according  to  appear- 
ance. He  appeared  to  thera  to  be  a  man.  But  we 
are  not  confined  to  human  appearance  for  evidence  of 
Christ's  humanit3\  The  apostle  Paul,  who  was  under 
the  inspiration  of  God's  Spirit,  called  Jesus  Christ  a 
man.  Preaching  to  the  Athenians  concerning  the  res- 
urrection, he  said,  "Because  he  hath  appointed  a  day 
in  the  which  he  will  judge  the  world  in  righteousness 
by  that  man,  whom  he  hath  ordained."  In  his  epistle 
to  the  Romans,  he  contrasts  Christ  with  Adam.  He 
speaks  of  the  extensive  and  deleterious  effects  of 
Adam's  sin;  and  in  view  of  this,  he  declares  the  exten- 
sive and  beneficial  effects  of  the  obedience  of  Christ. 
His  language  is,  "As  by  one  man''s  disobedience  many 
were  made  sinners;  so  by  the  obedience  of  one  shall 
many  be  made  righteous."  The  phraseology  of  this 
passage  authorizes  a  belief  that  one,  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  text,  means  one  man,  which  is  Jesus  Christ. 
"For,  since  by  man  came  death,  by  man,  (i.  e.  Christ,) 
came  also  the  resurrection  of  the  dead."  "The  first 
man  is  of  the  earth,  earthy;  the  second  man  is  the 
Lord  from  heaven.  There  is  one  God,  and  one  Medi- 
ator between  God  and  men,  the  man  Christ  Jesus." 
Christ  repeatedly  called  himself  the  Son  of  man. 
Interrogating  his  disciples  concerning  peoples'  opinion 
of  himself,  he  said,  "Whom  do  people  say  that  1  the 
Son  of  man  am?"  This  appellation  is  frequently  given 
by  the  Evangelists  to  Christ. 

The  two  angels  who  were  sent  to  Sodom  to  destroy 
the  place,  and  to  save  Lot  and  his  family,  had  the 
appearance  of*  men.  On  account  of  this  appearance 
they  were  called  men.  But  it  is  presumable  that 
they  did  not  actually  assume  flesh  and  blood.  They 
probably  assumed  this  appearance  because  they  could, 
in  this  manner,  more  intelligibly  communicate  infor- 
mation, and  avoid  the  appearance  of  miraculous  inter- 
position. Christ,  before  his  incarnation,  appeared  at 
times  in  the  likeness  of  a  man.  When  he  wrestled 
with  Jacob,  he  appeared  as  a  man,  and  he  was  called 


UN    THE    HUMANITY    OF    CHRIST.  273 

a  man.  The  scriptures  give  this  account  of  the  trans- 
action. "Jacob  was  left  alone;  and  there  wrestled  a 
man  with  him  until  the  breaking  of  the  day.  And 
Jacob  called  the  name  of  the  place  Peniel;  for  I  have 
seen  God  face  to  face." 

Because  angels  appeared,  at  times,  in  human  like- 
ness, and  were  called  men;  because  Christ,  in  the 
early  ages  of  the  world,  appeared  in  human  likeness, 
and  was  called  a  man,  though  neither  he  nor  they 
were  encompassed  by  humanity,  it  does  not  follow, 
that  Christ,  when  he  abode  upon  earth,  was  not  in- 
vested with  human  nature;  that  he  only  had  the 
appearance  of  a  man,  without  the  reality.  He  was 
the  seed  oiihe  woman.  He  descended  from  the  house 
of  David.  If  his  conception  was  different  from  the 
ordmary  course  of  nature,  this  circumstance  does  not 
affect  his  humanity.  Adam  was  formed  in  a  manner 
different  from  any  of  his  posterity.  But  he  was  not  the 
less  human  on  account  of  the  peculiar  mode  of  his  origi- 
nation. Christ  was  born  of  Mary.  He,  undoubtedly, 
was  nourished  as  other  children.  He  increased  in 
stature.  He  ate  and  drank.  After  long  abstinence 
from  food,  "he  was  an  hungred."  It  cannot  be  sup- 
posed that  this  was  merely  appearance;  that  there  was 
no  reality.  It  seems  to  be  an  impeachment  of  the 
human  understanding  to  attempt  to  prove  that  Christ 
had  a  human  body.  But  it  is  a  greater  impeachment 
to  deny  it. 

Some,  who  admit  that  Christ  had  a  human  body, 
deny  that  he  had  a  human  soul.  As  this  denial  mate- 
rially affects  the  character  of  Christ,  it  is  necessary  to 
investigate  this  point.  When  Christ  is  called  in  the 
sacred  Scriptures,  man  and  Son  of  man,  there  is  no 
intimation  given  that  these  words  are  not  to  be  under- 
stood according  to  their  usual  and  natural  import.  By 
the  word  man,  is  understood  a  particularly  organized 
body,  animated  by  rational  powers.  A  human  body, 
which  has  been  deprived  of  its  spirit,  cannot  with 
propriety  be  called  a  man.  Nor  is  it  proper  to  applj 
35 


274  ON    THE    HUMANITY    OF    CHRIST. 

this  term  to  a  disembodied  human  spirit.  It  requires 
both  of  these  substances,  matter  and  spirit,  to  consti- 
tute a  man.  If  the  body  of  Christ  was  animated  and 
actuated  only  by  the  Son  of  God,  there  would  be  no 
propriety  in  calling  him  a  man;  because  it  was  desti- 
tute of  an  essential,  and  of  the  most  important  part  of 
human  nature.  If  the  body  of  Christ  was  not  ani- 
mated by  a  human  soul,  it  is  not  true  that  the  Son  of 
God  was  united  with  humanity.  A  piece  of  matter, 
organized  like  a  human  body,  but  destitute  of  a  soul, 
is  no  more  capable  of  human  sensations,  than  a  piece 
of  matter  differently  organized.  Consequently  it 
could  not  be  considered  possessing  the  essentials  of 
human  nature. 

The  apostle  Paul,  speaking  of  Christ,  asserts  that  he 
"was  made  in  the  likeness  of  men."  The  original  word 
{^o[Loioo{^aTi)  translated  likeness,  signifies  more  than  like- 
ness of  appearance.  It  signifies  a  real  likeness,  a  like- 
ness of  nature.  Christ  was  not  made  in  the  real 
likeness  of  men,  if  he  resembled  them  only  in  the  or- 
ganization of  his  body.  This  would  be  comparatively 
a  small  resemblance.  The  apostle  Paul,  representing 
Christ  undertaking  the  redemption  of  man,  asserts,  that 
"zn  all  things  it  behoved  him  to  be  made  like  unto  his 
brethren."  If  he  had  not  a  human  soul,  he  was  not 
made  like  his  brethren  in  all  things.  In  the  most 
important  points  he  was  not  made  like  them.  The 
reason  the  apostle  assigned  why  it  behoved  Christ  to 
be  made  like  his  brethren  was,  "that  he  might  be  a 
merciful  and  faithful  high  Priest  in  things  pertaining 
to  God  to  make  reconciliation  for  the  sins  of  the  peo- 
ple. For  in  that  he  himself  hath  suffered,  being 
tempted,  he  is  able  to  succor  them  that  are  tempted." 
The  consequence  of  Christ's  being  made  like  his  breth- 
ren was,  he  had  human  feelings.  Christ  in  his  divine 
nature  knew  what  were  the  feelings,  the  passions,  the 
infirmities  and  temptations  of  humanity.  But  in  his 
divine  nature  he  never  felt  them.  In  consequence  of 
Ihe  divine  Son's  union  with  human  nature  he  became 


ON    THE    HUMANITY    OF    CHRIST.  275 

a  merciful^  as  well  as  a  faithful  high  Priest.     He  was 
tried  by  temptation.     When  he  had  fasted  a  long  time, 
he  felt  the  sensation  of  hunger.     He  had  a  desire  for 
food  like  any  man.     In  this  situation  he  was  tempted, 
when  Satan  proposed  to  him  to  supply   himself  with 
bread  in  a  miraculous  manner.     He  undoubtedly  had 
a  desire  for  the  conveniences  of  life;   but  higher  mo- 
tives   counteracted   this    desire.      He    was   therefore 
subject  to  temptation,  when  all   the  kingdoms  of  the 
world  were  offered  to  him.     Jn  view  of  the  sufferings, 
which  awaited  him,   he   desired,  if  it    were  possible, 
that  they  might  pass   from   him.      He   was,  therefore, 
tempted    to  shrink  from   the    tortures   of  the  cross. 
Christ  speaking  to  his  disciples  concerning  their  faith- 
fulness to  him,  said,  "Ye  are  they,  which   have   con- 
tinued with  me  in  my  temptations."     The  apostle    to 
the  Hebrews  says,  "We  have  not  an  high  Priest  which 
cannot   be  touched  with  the   feeling  of  our  infirmities; 
but  was  In  all  points  tempted  like  as  we  are,  yet  with- 
out sin."   It  is  impossible  that  Christ  should  be  subject 
to  temptations  as  we  are;  that  he  should  be  touched 
with  the  feeling  of  our  infirmities^  if  he  had  not  a  liuman 
soul.     Separate  the  mind  from  the  body,  and  it  is  hard 
to  conceive  how   the  body  can  have   perceptions  and 
sensations.    Can  the  eye  see  and  perceive;  can  the  ear 
hear  and  understand,  independently  of  the  intellectual 
faculties?  When  intelligence  is  withdrawn,  the  body  has 
no  perception  nor  sensation.     If  there  be  a  distinction 
between  the  sensitive  and  intellectual  powers  of  man, 
there  cannot  be  a  proper  man  without  such  intellec- 
tual  powers.     If  a  humanly  organized  sensitive  body 
may  be  supposed,  it  can  have   only  animal  sensations; 
it  cannot  have  human  feelings  and  passions,  excepting 
on  principles  of  modern  philosophy,  which  makes  the 
human  soul  a  necessary  result  of  a  particular  organ- 
ization of  matter.* 

Such  a  being  may   have  the   appearance  of  a  man; 
but  it  is  not  true  that  in  all  things  he  is  made  like  unto 

*  See  Pi-iestley  oa  Matter  and  Spirit. 


276  ON    THE    HUMANITY    OF    CHRIST. 

a  man.  On  the  present  supposition,  the  Son  of  God 
might  as  well  (for  aught  we  know  to  the  contrary) 
have  united  with  a  body  of  any  other  shape,  as  with 
one  of  human  shape.  In  this  union,  his  feelings  and 
sensations  would  have  been  only  of  divine  and  ani- 
mal nature;  but  not  of  human  nature.  Consequently 
his  incarnation  would  not  have  brought  him  into  a 
nearer  relationship  with  the  human  race.  It  would 
not  have  subjected  him  to  human  temptations;  nor 
would  it  have  capacitated  him  to  sympathize  with  the 
infirmities  of  humanity,  or  to  succor  those,  who  were 
tempted.  One  great  object  of  Christ's  incarnation 
was,  that  he  might  have  a  personal  knowledge  of  hu- 
man nature;  that  he  might  be  personally  acquainted 
with  the  infirmities,  the  temptations  and  hardships, 
which  are  common  to  the  human  race.  The  infirmi- 
ties of  humanity  are  no  less  attached  to  the  mind  than 
to  the  body.  If  the  body  of  Christ  were  not  ani- 
mated by  a  human  soul,  he  could  not  be  tempted  as 
we  are;  he  could  not  be  conscious  of  our  infirmities;  he 
could  not  feel,  as  we  do,  the  hardships  of  human  life; 
his  incarnation  would  not  capacitate  him  to  sympa- 
thize with  us  in  our  afflictions,  nor  to  succor  us  when 
we  are  tempted. 

The  account,  which  the  sacred  scriptures  give  of 
Christ,  is  a  decisive  proof  that  he  possessed  a  human 
son).  It  is  recorded  that  he  increased  in  wisdom.  If 
his  body  was  animated  only  by  a  divine  Spirit,  it  was 
not  possible  that  he  could  increase  in  wisdom.  Divinity 
is  unchangeable.  The  Son  of  God  is  called  Wisdom. 
This  divine  attribute  is  not  capable  of  increase  nor 
diminution.  His  increase  of  wisdom,  therefore,  must 
be  of  human  wisdom. 

One  object  of  Christ's  incarnation  was,  to  manifest 
that  the  divine  law  was  holy  and  just  and  good;  that 
it  required  no  more  than  human  nature  was  capable 
of  performing.  If  the  body  of  Christ  was  actuated 
only  by  divine  intelligence,  his  obedience  of  the  divine 
law  would  give  no  evidence  that  human  nature   was 


ON    THE    HUMANITY    OF    CHRIST.  277 

capable  of  the  same  obedience.  It  would  be  an  exam- 
ple which  might  not  be  wholly  calculated  for  our  imi- 
tation. At  least  it  would  not  carry  evidence  with 
itself  that  we  are  capable  of  obedience.  To  give 
evidence  that  the  law  was  righteous,  and  to  set  an 
example  for  the  human  race,  it  was  necessary  that  he 
should  obey  in  a  nature  like  our's;  i.  e.  a  nature  com- 
posed of  body  and  soul. 

How  far  the  Son  of  God  sustained  the  Son  of  man; 
or  whether  he  afforded   him   any  extraordinary  sup- 
port,  it  is  difficult  to  determine.     It  is  evident  that 
Christ,  in  his  human  nature,  received  extraordinary 
communications   of  the  Holy  Spirit.     When  he   was 
baptized  the  Holy  Ghost  descended  upon  him.     It  is 
not  to  be  supposed   that    the  Holy  Ghost   communi- 
cated the   divine  Son  to  the  man  Christ  Jesus.     It  is 
not  the   office  of  the   Spirit  to  send    the    Son.     The 
divine  nature  of  Christ  did  not  need  the  communica- 
tions of  the  Holy   Spirit.     It  was  complete   in  itself; 
and  was  competent  to  the  duties  of  its  office.     The 
cffijsions  of  the  Holy  Spirit  were  shed  upon  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  to  capacitate   him  for  the  work  of 
redemption.     As   he   had  more   to  perform,  more  to 
endure,  than  human  nature  ever  performed  or  endured, 
more    copious  effijsions  of   the  Spirit  were    made  to 
him.     The  Spirit   was  not   communicated  to    him   by 
measure.     The  Spirit  led  Jesus  into  the  wilderness  to 
be  tempted  of  the  devil.     Without  doubt  he  granted 
him  his  sustaining  influence.     When  Christ  taught  in 
the  synagogue,  he  read   a  prophetic  passage,  which 
related  to  the  Messiah:  "The   Spirit  of  the    Lord  is 
upon  me."     The   apostle  Peter  bore  testimony  "how 
God  anointed  Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
and  with  power."  The  apostle  Paul  to  the  Hebrews, 
speaking  of  the  Son,  says,  "God,  even  thy   God  hath 
anointed  thee  with  the  oil  of  gladness  above  thy   fel- 
lows."    This  was  the  anointing  of  the  Holy  Spirit  at 
his  consecration;  and  he  was  anointed  in  a  more  extra- 
ordinary degree  than  any  of  his  fellows,  the  prophets, 


278  GN   THE    HUMANITY    OB^     GHRIST. 

priests,  or  kings.  The  man  Christ  Jesus  received  not 
only  the  aids  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  he  received  the 
ministration  of  angels.  After  he  was  tempted  by 
Satan,  "angels  came  and  ministered  unto  him."  When 
he  was  in  agony  on  the  mount  of  Ohves,  and  prayed 
to  the  Father,  that,  if  he  were  willing,  the  cup  might 
pass  from  him,  "there  appeared  an  angel  unto  him 
from  heaven  strengthening  him." 

The  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  the  ministra- 
tion of  angels  are  afforded  to  man.  This  completes 
the  parallel  between  the  man  Christ  Jesus  and  the 
human  race.  He  personally  knows  the  assistances 
they  receive,  and  the  temptations  and  hardships  which 
they  endure;  and  he  is  perfectly  qualified  to  make 
a  just  distinction  between  human  infirmities,  and  the 
evil  propensities  of  human  nature. 

The  sacred  Scriptures  attribute  human  passions  to 
Jesus  Christ.  He  appears  to  have  had  human  views 
and  human  feelings,  and  to  be  actuated  like  a  holy 
man.  At  a  time  he  rejoiced  in  spirit.  At  other  times 
he  suffered  the  pains  of  grief.  The  prophet  describ- 
ing the  low  condition  of  Christ,  says,  "He  is  despised 
and  rejected  of  men,  a  man  of  sorrows  and  acquainted 
with  f^rief.  Surely  he  hath  borne  our  griefs  and  car- 
ried our  sorrows."  His  life  corresponded  with  this 
prophetic  description.  At  the  grave  of  Lazarus  he 
wept.  He  shed  teTirs  over  impenitent  Jerusalem. 
In  view  of  approaching  death  and  of  its  attending  cir- 
cumstances, he  was  in  agon3^  He  said,  "Now  is  my 
soul  troubled.  My  soid  is  exceedingly  sorrowful  even 
unto  death."  He  prayed  that,  if  it  were  possible,  he 
might  be  delivered  from  the  hour  of  dissolution,  which 
just  awaited  him.  He  appeared  to  have  the  same 
struggle  between  a  sense  of  duty  and  the  infirmity  of 
human  nature,  which  it  would  be  expected  any  holy 
man  would  have.  \V^hen  he  was  on  the  cross  and 
suffering  its  tortures;  when  the  Father  withdrew  the 
light  of  his  countenance,  and  it  was  the  hour  of  the 
power  of  darkness,  he   exclaimed,  My  God,  my  God, 


ON    THE   HUMANITY    OF    CHRIST.  279 

why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?  This  is  not  the  language 
of  divinity.  This  is  the  language  of  suffering  humanity. 
At  times  Jesus  Christ  manifested  anger.  When 
the  Pharisees  watched  him  whether  he  would  heal 
on  the  Sabbath-day,  "he  looked  round  about  on  them 
with  anger.''''  When  Jesus  went  up  to  Jerusalem  and 
saw  that  the  temple  was  made  a  place  of  traffic,  he 
manifested  a  zeal  for  the  honor  of  his  Father's  house. 
He  expressed  indignation  when  he  used  the  scourge, 
poured  out  the  changers'  money,  and  overthrew  the 
tables. 

The  Savior  manifested  a  love,  which  had  every 
appearance  of  human  love.  When  the  rich  young 
man  addressed  hmi  in  terms  of  respect;  appeared 
polished  in  his  manners  and  regular  in  his  life,  Jesus 
beholding  him  loved  him.  He  appears  to  have  had  a 
peculiar  alTection  for  the  family  of  Mary.  John  was 
the  disciple,  whom  Jesus  loved. 

When  Christ  is  said  to  be  angry,  to  be  grieved;  to 
rejoice;  to  exercise   love;  to  suffer  pain,  there  is  no 
appearance  that  these  affections  are  to  be  understood 
figuratively.      When  he  manifested  these  affections  to 
the  senses,  he  manifested  them  really,  not  figuratively. 
If  a  human  soul  was  not  united  with  the  body  of  Jesus, 
it   is  impossible  that  he  should  have  had  these  affec- 
tions,     if  his   body  was  animated  only  by  the  divine 
Son,  it  is  impossible  that  he  should  be  tempted  as  we 
are,  for  God  is  not  tempted  with  evil;  and  it  is  absurd 
to  suppose  that  a  mere  body  is  subject  to  temptation. 
There  is  a  manifest  propriety  that   the   Mediator 
between   God   and   man    should    possess    divine    and 
human  nature.     By  this  union  he  would  feel  an  interest 
in  the  rights   of  both    parties.     While  he  vindicated 
the  rights  of  God's  throne,  he  would  have  compassion 
on  the  infirmities   of  humanity.     Had  he  been   only 
divine,  the  sinful  race  of  man  might,  perhaps,   have 
accused  him  of  partiality  to  the  cause  of  his  Father, 
while   he   neglected   to  plead  their  cause.     Had  he 
been  only  human,  he   might   have  neglected  divine 


280  ON   THE    HUMANITY    OF   CHRIST. 

rights;  and  have  exercised  an  undue  partiaHty  for  his 
brethren.  But  by  possessing  both  natures,  he  will 
exhibit  evidence  that  he  pays  just  regard  to  both 
parties;  and  of  course,  every  mouth  will  finally  be 
stopped  before  God. 

The  human  mind  cannot  comprehend  the  union 
which  subsists  between  the  Son  of  man  and  the  Son 
of  God.  Neither  can  it  comprehend  the  union  be- 
tween soul  and  body.  It  does  not  understand  how 
matter  affects  spirit,  and  how  spirit  affects  matter.  It 
does  not  understand  how  the  divine  Spirit  sustains  and 
moves  the  inanimate  world;  nor  does  it  understand 
how  he  supports  and  gives  operation  to  the  human 
soul  and  body.  These  are  acknowledged  truths. 
They  are  not  denied,  because  they  cannot  be  com- 
prehended. If  the  divine  Mind  pervades  all  things; 
and  moves  all  things,  it  is  not  incredible  that  he  should 
have  a  peculiar  residence  and  efficiency  in  the  man 
Jesus  Christ. 

It  is  written,  "The  Word  was  made  fleshy  The 
apostle  Peter,  speaking  of  the  patriarch  David  said, 
"God  had  sworn  with  an  oath  to  him,  that  of  the  fruit 
of  his  loins  according  to  the  flesh,  he  would  raise  up 
Christ  to  sit  on  his  throne."  The  apostle  Paul  saith, 
"Concerning  his  Son  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  which  was 
made  of  the  seed  of  David  according  to  the  flesh^ 
"When  he  cometh  into  the  w^orld  he  saith,  sacrifice 
and  offering  thou  wouldest  not;  but  a  body  hast  thou 
prepared  me."  Because  the  terra  flesh  is  applied  to 
Christ;  because  a  body  was  prepared  for  him;  it  does 
not  follow  that  his  flesh  was  not  animated  by  a  human 
soul.  It  is  well  known  that  in  the  sacred  Scriptures, 
as  well  as  in  other  writings,  that  a  figure  is  used, 
which  puts  a  part  for  the  whole.  The  word  flesh  is 
often  used  in  the  Bible  to  signify  not  only  the  human 
body,  but  the  whole  person.  "God  looked  upon  the 
earth,  and,  behold,  it  was  corrupt;  for  all  flesh  had 
corrupted  his  way  upon  the  earth."  It  cannot  be 
supposed  that  human  bodies  are  here  spoken  of  to  the 


ON    THE    HU3IANITY    OP    CHRIST.  281 

exclusion  of  human  souls.  It  is  not  supposed  that  the 
bodies  only  corrupted  his  ways  and  the  souls  kept 
themselves  pure.  The  Psalmist,  desiring  to  see  the 
power  and  glory  of"  God,  saith,  ""My  Jlesh  longeth  for 
thee."  It  is  not  rational  to  suppose  that  the  word 
flesh  in  this  passage  signifies  his  material,  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  his  spiritual  part.  There  are  many  other 
passages  in  the  sacred  Scriptures,  too  numerous  to  be 
quoted,  in  which  the  word  tlesh  signifies  the  whole 
person;  and  in  those  passages  it  is  the  most  natural 
signification  of  the  word.  Consequently,  it  may  signify 
a  complete  human  person  when  it  is  applied  to  Christ. 
The  Word  was  made  Jiesh,  i.  e.  he  was  made  in  the 
likeness  of  men. 

There  is  such  a  union  between  the  Son  of  God  and 
the  Son  of  man,  that  some  of  the  qualities  of  each  are, 
in  the  Scriptures,  applied  to  the  other.  "The  second 
man  is  the  Lord  from  heaven."  In  this  passage,  a 
divine  name  is  given  to  the  Son  of  man.  Thou  wilt 
not  leave  my  soul  in  hell,  neither  wilt  thou  suffer  thine 
Holy  One  to  see  corruption.  The  divine  title.  Holy 
One,  was  applied  to  the  body  of  Christ. 

So  nearly  united  were  the  humanity  and  divinity  of 
Christ,  that  he  sometimes  spoke  of  one  nature,  some- 
times of  the  other.  If  there  be  so  intimate  a  union 
between  Christ  and  believers,  that  they  are  called 
members  of  his  body,  it  is  not  incredible  that  the  Son 
of  God  should  have  a  peculiarly  intimate  union  with 
the  Son  of  man. 


36 


A    SUMMARY    VIEW    OF    THE   EVIDENCES    OF 
THE  DIVINITY  OF  JESUS  CHRIST. 


After  examining  generally  the  evidences  of  the  sacred 
scriptures  in  favor  of  the  existence  of  God,  the  divine 
unity  and  the  divine  plurality;  and  after  examining 
particularly  their  evidences  in  favor  of  the  divinity  of 
the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it  is 
suitable  to  bring  these  evidences  into  one  view  that 
we  may  feel  their  united  force.  Every  source  of 
evidence  affords  a  rich  supply  of  arguments  in  proof 
of  the  subject.  But  when  all  the  sources  are  opened, 
and  their  united  strength  is  made  to  bear  upon  oppos- 
ing systems,  it  is  hoped  they  will  carry  conviction, 
where  a  single  argument,  or  a  single  source  of  evidence 
would  fail. 

The  existence  of  God,  is  written  as  with  a  sunbeam 
on  all  the  works  of  nature.  "The  invisible  things  of 
him  from  the  creation  of  the  world  are  clearly  seen, 
being  understood  by  the  things  that  are  made,  even 
his  eternal  power  and  Godhead."  The  unity  of  God 
is  argued  from  the  correspondence  between  the  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  world;  from  the  uniformity  of 
divine  government;  from  the  coincidence  of  the  dif- 
ferent parts  of  the  sacred  scriptures;  and  from  the 
sameness  of  Spirit,  which  runs  through  the  whole 
system.  The  unity  of  Israel's  God  was  expressly 
taught  bv  divine  authority  in  contradistinction  to  the 
multiplicity  of  the  gods  of  the  heathen.     Plurality  in 


SUMMARY    VIEW    OF   THE    EVIDENCES,   &;C.  28S 

the  divine  nature  is  deducible  from  the  divine  name  of 
plural  number;  from  the  specification  of  distinctions  in 
the  divine  nature;  and  from  different  and  significant 
names  applied  to  the  Deity. 

Revelation  has  not  left  us  with  only  these  general 
ideas  of  God.  While  it  exhibits  the  unity  of  the  di- 
vine essence,  it  exhibits  certain  distinctions,  which 
constitute  a  ground  of  intercourse  and  of  reciprocal 
compact. 

The  Father  occupies  the  first  place  in  the  work  of 
redemption.  He  possesses  no  priority  of  existence, 
nor  superiority  of  nature,  compared  with  the  Son  and 
Spirit.  But  according  to  the  methodical  arrangement 
of  infinite  Wisdom,  there  is  order  of  offices  in  the  dis- 
pensation of  grace.  By  reciprocal  consent  the  Father 
holds  the  first  office;  the  first  in  respect  to  order  and 
number.  The  authority  which  the  Father  had  to 
send  the  Son  was  by  mutual  consent.  The  universal 
authority  which  the  Son  had  in  heaven  and  in  earth, 
after  his  resurrection,  was  also  by  mutual  consent. 
The  terms,  Father  and  God,  are  often  used  in  the 
scriptures  as  synonymous. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  not  incidentally  ex- 
pressed or  alluded  to  in  the  scriptures.  It  is  not  con- 
fined to  some  solitary  passage  or  page,  as  if  it  were 
interpolated,  or  casually  dropped  from  the  penman  of 
the  sacred  oracles.  It  is  a  prominent  doctrine. 
Divine  plurality  appears  in  the  first  sentence  of  divine 
inspiration.  It  was  gradually  unfolded  in  ancient  times. 
After  the  advent  of  Christ  it  was  revealed  with  greater 
clearness  and  distinctness.  In  short,  it  is  a  doctrine 
interwoven  through  the  whole   system  of  revelation. 

The  divinity  of  Christ  is  inferred  from  a  multiphcity 
of  evidences,  each  of  which  appears  to  be  conclusive. 
Divine  names  are  given  to  him.  The  most  exalted 
names  of  God,  names,  significant  of  his  existence  are 
applied  to  him.  Some  divine  names,  it  is  true,  are 
given  to  creatures.  But  all  divine  names  are  not  given  to 
any  creature.    But  the  highest  divine  names  are  given 


284  SUMMARY    VIEW    OF   THE   EVIDENCES 

to  Christ.  When  they  are  applied  to  creatures,  they 
are  applied  with  such  restrictions  and  qualifications, 
and  with  such  evident  relation  to  creatures,  that  they 
are  not  calculated  to  lead  people  into  the  belief  that 
they  are  divine.  When  they  are  applied  to  Christ, 
they  are  applied  without  limitation.  No  intimation  is 
given  that  these  names  are  not  literally  applied.  If 
Christ  had  not  been  divine,  there  is  no  doubt  that  some 
qualification  or  restriction  would  have  been  added  to 
his  titles  to  prevent  people,  naturally  prone  to  idola- 
try, from  giving  him  divine  worship.  As  no  such 
restriction  is  annexed  to  the  divine  titles  of  Christ, 
the  scriptures  are  sadly  calculated  to  mislead,  if  he  be 
not  divine.  It  seems  that  the  frequent  application  of 
divine  names,  even  the  highest  divine  names  to  Jesus 
Christ,  would  prevent  all  objection  to  his  divinity.  If 
there  were  but  one  source  of  evidence  to  prove  his 
Deity,  if  but  one  characteristic  feature  of  divinity  were 
attributed  to  him,  there  might  be,  perhaps,  some 
ground  to  doubt  his  divinity.  Such  explanation  might 
be  given  by  denlers  of  his  divinity,  which  would  seem 
to  take  from  him  his  divine  claims. 

But  the  divinity  of  Christ  does  not  rest  on  one 
source  of  evidence.  He  has  more  than  one  divine 
feature.  What  is  a  name,  a  high  name,  unless  it  be 
appropriately  given.'*  What  is  a  divine  name,  unless  it 
designate  divine  nature?  The  same  scriptures,  which 
give  divine  titles  to  Christ,  also  ascribe  to  him  divine 
attributes.  Duration,  knowledge,  wisdom,  presence, 
and  power,  are  attributed  to  Christ  in  no  less  degree 
than  to  the  Father.  Sometimes  a  single  divine  attri- 
bute is  hyperbolically  given  to  a  creature,  not  to 
designate  divine  nature,  but  to  express  some  extraor- 
dinary quality.  But  this  bears  no  proportion  to  the 
literal  application  of  the  whole  assemblage  of  divine 
qualities  to  Jesus  Christ.  If  divine  attributes  had  been 
given  to  Christ  only  in  a  figurative  sense,  it  would 
have  been  necessary  that  some  notice  should  be  given 
of  the  figurative  allusion.     But  as  no  such  notice  was 


OF    THE    DIVINITY    OF    JESUS    CHRIST.  285 

given;  as  no  limitations  of  number  or  degree  were 
made  to  those  divine  attributes,  which  were  ascribed 
to  Christ,  it  is  a  natural  inference  that  his  nature  is 
divine.  If  any  should  not  admit  that  divine  titles  ap- 
plied to  Christ  proved  him  to  be  divirie,  it  seems  that 
the  addition.d  evidence  of  divine  attributes  applied  to 
him,  would  decide  the  question. 

In  addition  to  these  evidences,  the  same  works  are 
attributed  to  Christ,  which  are  attributed  to  God. 
He  is  the  Author  of  creation.  He  was  in  concert 
with  the  Father  and  Spirit,  w  hen  it  was  said,  "Let  us 
make  man."  He  performed  miracles  by  his  own 
power  and  authority.  He  will  raise  the  dead  and 
judge  the  world.  Greater  works  are  not  attributed 
to  the  Father  than  those,  which  aie  attributed  to  the 
Son.  If  the  divinity  of  the  Father  is  argued  from  his 
works,  it  is  equally  conclusive,  to  infer  Christ's  divinity 
from  his  works.  If  Christ  wa?  merely  an  instrument 
in  the  hand  of  the  Father  in  tiie  work  of  creation, 
and  in  the  perforjiance  of  miracles;  and  wrought  only 
by  the  communication  of  his  power,  it  would  not  be 
proper  to  attribute  these  works  to  Christ,  excepting 
under  certain  restrictions.  But  as  no  such  restrictions 
are  applied  to  him,  it  is  a  fair  conclusion  that  he 
wrought  bv  his  own  power.  It  is  impossible  that 
almighty  power  should  be  transferred  from  God  the 
Father  to  a  creature;  and  it  is  also  impossible  that 
the  operation  of  almighty  power  should  be  the  act  of 
a  creature.  If  Christ  be  properly  the  Author  of  the 
works  of  creation  and  of  miracles,  he  of  course  pos- 
sesses divine  power.  If  he  be  not  properly  the  Author 
of  the  world  and  of  miracles,  the  Scriptures  are  cal- 
culated to  mislead,  and  they  have  misled  the  human 
mind. 

The  sacred  Scriptures  represent  the  knowledge  and 
wisdom  of  the  Son  in  as  high  degree  as  they  represent 
the  knowledge  and  wisdom  of  the  Father.  By  way 
of  eminence,  tlie  Son  is  called  wisdom.  By  his  works 
and  dispensations  he   has  proved  that  this  name  is 


286  SUMMARY    VIEW    OF    THE    EVIDENCES 

significant  and  appropriate.  When  he  was  upon 
earth,  he  had  an  intuitive  view  of  transactions  where 
his  bodily  eye  could  not  penetrate.  He  knew  what 
was  in  man.  When  his  enemies  meditated  evil  against 
him,  he  knew  their  thoughts.  "No  one  knoweth  the 
Father  but  the  Son."  This  declaration  implies  that 
the  Son  had  a  knowledge  of  the  Father.  It  requires 
an  unlimited  capacity  to  have  knowledge  of  an  infinite 
subject. 

There  is  evidence  from  Scripture  that  the  presence 
of  the  Son  is  as  extensive  as  the  works  of  creation. 
He  represented  himself  to  be  at  the  same  time  in 
heaven  and  on  earth.  To  his  disciples,  who  were 
going  into  different  parts  of  the  world  he  said,  "Lo,  I 
am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world." 
His  office  as  Intercessor  implies  that  he  is  present  with 
all  his  suppliants  and  hears  their  petitions. 

The  divine  goodness  of  the  Son  is  inferred  from  his 
works  before  his  incarnation;  from  his  dispensations  on 
earth;  from  his  official  acts,  which  he  will  perform  at 
the  last  day;  and  from  his  system  of  religion,  whose 
tendency  is  of  the  most  salutary  nature.  If  the  works, 
the  dispensations  and  the  religion  of  God  prove  his 
divine  goodness,  the  same,  being  the  works  of  the  Son, 
prove  with  equal  decision  his  divine  goodness.  If  it 
was  an  act  of  goodness  in  the  Father  to  send  his  Son 
into  the  world  to  redeem  mankind,  it  was  no  less 
goodness  in  the  Son  to  come  into  the  world  for  this 
purpose. 

The  sacred  Scriptures  attribute  no  less  authority 
to  Christ  than  to  the  Father.  He  has  authority  over 
his  ambassadors.  He  has  authority  over  his  church. 
He  has  authority  to  forgive  sins.  He  has  authority 
to  judge  the  world  and  dispense  retribution.  He  has 
all  authority  in  heaven  and  in  earth;  all  authority, 
which  is  essential  to  the  office  of  Redeemer. 

The  Son  is  entitled  to  no  less  honor  than  the  Father. 
This  is  inferred  from  the  worship  he  has  received. 
Immediately  after  he  came  into  the  world,  wise  men 


OP     THE    DIVINITY    OF   JESUS    CHRIST.  287 

went  and  worshipped  him.  The  divine  command 
was,  "Let  all  the  angels  of  God  worship  him."  His 
disciples  and  others  worshipped  him;  and  he  forbade 
them  not.  His  own  language  was  "that  all  men  should 
honor  the  Son  even  as  they  honor  the  Father."  If 
he  had  not  been  entitled  to  divine  worship,  he  would 
not  have  required  it;  nor  would  he  have  countenanced 
it  when  it  was  offered  him. 

These  evidences  unite  their  force  to  prove  the 
divinity  of  Christ.  There  are  as  great  evidences  in 
favor  of  the  divinity  of  the  Son,  as  there  are  in  favor 
of  the  divinity  of  the  Father.  If  these  evidences  do 
not  prove  the  divinity  of  the  former,  neither  do  they 
prove  the  divinity  of  the  latter.  If  we  ask  for  more 
evidence,  than  the  Scriptures  afford,  to  prove  the 
divinity  of  Christ,  we  must,  to  be  consistent,  ask  for 
more  evidence  of  the  existence  of  God;  and  of  the 
infinitude  of  his  attributes.  If  the  testimony  of  Scrip- 
ture on  this  subject  can  be  explained  away,  or  be 
made  to  signify  any  thing  or  nothing,  the  testimony  of 
Scripture  on  other  subjects  can  be  explained  away,  or 
be  perverted  with  equal  ease.  If  the  cloud  of  evi- 
dences, which  the  Bible  offers  to  prove  the  divinity 
of  the  Son,  does  not  prove  it,  it  is  impossible  to  name 
evidence  or  evidences,  which  will  prove  it. 

Each  evidence,  which  has  been  adduced  in  favor 
of  Christ's  divmity,  appears  to  be  conclusive.  But 
they  appear  with  increased  strength,  when  they  are 
viewed  together.  Like  the  pillars  of  an  edifice  stand- 
ing individually  on  their  own  bases,  they  stand  more 
firm  by  their  connexion. 

The  sacred  Scriptures  were  designed  to  enhghten, 
not  to  confound  the  human  understanding.  They  were 
designed  to  exhibit  the  divine  nature  and  character; 
and  the  nature  and  condition  of  man.  If  the  Scrip- 
tures take  the  characteristic  traits  of  divinity  and 
apply  them,  in  all  their  extent,  to  humanity,  they  con- 
found the  Creator  with  the  creature.  They  darken 
the    human   mind.     They  lead  mankind  directlv  into 


288  SUMMARY    VIEW    OF    THE    EVIDENCES 

idolatry.  When  the  magicians  copied  with  great 
precision  the  mir-icles,  whicii  God  wrought  by  tlje  hand 
of  Moses,  God  saw  tit  to  give  a  visible  superiorit)-  to  his 
own  works,  lest  people  should  give  that  honor  to  the 
magicians,  which  was  due  only  to  hitnsell".  If  Christ 
be  a  mere  creature,  and  God  applied  so  many  divine 
properties  to  him,  and  did  not  manifest  a  decided 
superiority  of  himself,  it  might  well  be  expected  that 
people  would  esteem  and  honor  him  even  as  they 
esteemed  and  honored  the  Father.  As  the  Scriptures 
attribute  as  great  excellence  of  nature  and  as  great 
dignity  of  character  to  the  Son  as  to  the  Father,  it  is 
a  just  inference,  that  he  is  divine  and  is  entitled  to 
equal  love  and  veneration.  Those  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture, which  represent  Christ  to  be  inferior  to  the 
Father,  cannot  be  reconciled  with  tliose,  which  rep- 
resent him  to  be  equal  with  God,  without  admitting 
that  he  has  two  natures  of  unequal  excellence;  and 
that  the  former  class  of  texts  are  applied  to  his  infe- 
rior, and  the  latter  class  to  his  superior  nature.  If  it 
be  admitted  that  Christ  has  two  natures,  it  is  natural 
to  expect  that  the  Scriptures  would  sometimes  speak 
of  one  nature;  sometimes  of  the  other;  and  that  some- 
times they  would  speak  of  him  in  both  natures.  As 
there  are  two  classes  of  texts  applied  to  Christ,  one 
of  which  imports  an  inferior  and  the  other  a  superior 
nature,  there  is  the  highest  evidence  that  he  possesses 
two  natures.  As  these  two  classes  designate  human 
and  divine  nature,  it  follows  that  Jesus  Christ  is  both 
human  and  divine. 

If  we  contrast  Jesus  Christ  with  the  most  illustrious 
personages,  that  ever  appeared  on  earth,  personages, 
who  by  divine  couimunications  performed  miracles 
and  exhibited  the  most  distinguished  traits  of  character, 
we  shall  find  an  infinite  superiority  on  the  side  of 
Christ;  and  we  shall  find  an  argument  in  favor  of  his 
divinity.  "One  reflection,  which  I  beg  you  to  make 
in  finishing  this  part  of  my  discourse,  is  that,  if  only 
one  extraordinary  and  divine  trait  were  to  be   found 


OF    THE    DIVINITY    OP    JESUS    CHRIST.  289 

here  in  the  course  of  a  long  life,  we  might  be  inclined 
to  beheve  that  it  sometimes  pleaseth  the  Lord,  to 
allow  his  glory  and  his  power  to  shine  forth  in  his 
servants.  Thus,  Enoch  was  carried  up,  Moses  ap- 
peared transfigured  on  the  holy  mountain,  Elijah  was 
raised  up  to  heaven  in  a  fiery  chariot,  John  the  Bap- 
tist was  foretold.  But,  besides  that  these  were  indi- 
vidual circumstances,  and  that  the  language  of  those 
miraculous  men  and  of  their  disciples,  with  respect  to 
the  divinity  and  to  themselves,  left  no  room  for  super- 
stition and  mistake:  here,  it  is  an  assemblage  of 
wonders,  which  all,  or  even  taken  separately,  would 
have  been  sufficient  to  deceive  the  credulity  of  men: 
here,  all  the  different  traits,  dispersed  among  all  these 
extraordinary  men,  who  had  been  considered  almost 
as  gods  upon  the  earth,  are  collected  together  in  Jesus 
Christ,  but  in  a  manner  a  thousand  times  more  glori- 
ous and  more  divine.  He  prophesies,  but  more  loftily, 
and  with  more  striking  characters,  than  John  the 
Baptist:  he  appears  transfigured  in  the  holy  mount, 
but  surrounded  with  more  glory  than  Moses:  he 
ascends  to  heaven,  but  with  more  marks  of  power 
and  majesty  than  Elijah:  he  penetrates  into  the 
future,  but  with  more  accuracy  and  clearness  than  all 
the  prophets:  he  is  produced,  not  only  from  a  barren 
womb  like  Samuel,  but  likewise  by  a  pure  and  innocent 
virgin:  what  shall  I  say?  And  not  only  he  does  not 
undeceive  men  by  certain  and  precise  expressions  upon 
his  origin  as  purely  human;  but  his  sole  language  with 
respect  to  his  equality  to  the  Most  High;  but  the  sole 
doctrine  of  his  disciples,  who  tell  us  that  he  was  in 
the  bosom  of  God  from  all  eternity,  and  that  all  hath 
been  made  through  him,  who  call  him  their  Lord  and 
their  God,  who  inform  us  that  he  is  all  in  all  things, 
would  justify  the  error  of  those  who  worship  him, 
had  even  his  life  been,  in  other  respects,  an  ordinary 
one,  and  similar  to  that  of  other  men."* 

*  Massillon. 

37 


290  SUMMARY     VIEW    OF    THE     EVIDENCES- 

The  only  way,  by  which  we  know  one  class  of  beings 
from  another,  is  by  their  respective  peculiarities. 
Angels  are  distinguished  from  men  by  their  disem- 
bodied state;  by  their  superiority  of  capacity;  and  by 
their  dilierence  of  employment.  The  divine  Spirit  is 
distinguished  from  angels  and  men  by  the  peculiarities 
of  his  nature  and  the  peculiarities  of  his  works.  If 
they,  like  him,  be  spirits,  he  possesses  qualities  infi- 
nitely superior  to  theirs;  and  he  perforuis  works 
infinitely  beyond  the  limits  of  their  capacities.  If  we 
find  a  character  described  in  the  sacred  Scriptures, 
which  does  not  rank  with  angels  or  men,  but  possesses 
all  the  peculiarities  of  divinity,  it  is  agreeable  to  the 
rules  of  classification  to  call  him  divine.  The  Scrip- 
tures attribute  all  divine  properties  to  Jesus  Christ; 
and  they  must  be  perverted  or  rejected,  if  the  conclu- 
sion that  he  is  divine  be  denied. 

Besides  the  Father  and  the  Son,  the  sacred  Scrip- 
tures exhibit  another  character,  to  which  they  attri- 
bute divine  peculiarities.  To  the  Holy  Spirit  they 
ascribe  divine  attributes;  divine  works;  divine  hon- 
ors; they  give  him  a  distinct  character,  and  they  rep- 
resent him  acting  in  a  distinct  office;  and  bearing  a 
certain  relationship  to  the  Father  and  Son.  If  the 
Holy  Spirit  be  no  more  than  the  operation  of  the 
Father,  it  is  hard  to  conceive  why  the  Scriptures 
should  give  it  significant  and  appropriate  names;  give 
it  divine  qualities,  works  and  honors;  and  declare  it  to 
be  more  criminal  to  sin  against  it,  than  to  sin  against 
the  Father  or  the  Son.  If  the  Holy  Spirit  be  not 
divine;  if  he  be  not,  in  a  certain  sense,  distinct  from, 
as  well  as  united  to  the  Father  and  the  Son,  the 
Scriptures  cannot  be  understood  according  to  the  most 
natural  import  of  words. 

Should  we,  in  reading  the  history  of  any  particular 
country,  find  three  distinct  characters,  who  had  been 
employed  in  laying  the  foundation  of  a  nation;  and  at 
a  critical  juncture,  had,  by  their  united  exertions  saved 
it  from  ruin^  should   we  find  human  qualities  attrib- 


OF    THE    DIVINITY    OF    JESUS    CHRIST.  291 

uted  to  them;  and  discover  them  to  be  authors  of 
achievements,  pecuhar  to  men,  we  should  naturally 
conclude,  without  labored  arguments,  that  these  were 
the  authors  of  the  same  work;  that  they  were  three; 
and  that  these  three  were  human.  In  the  history  of 
creation,  and  in  the  history  of  redemption,  three  dis- 
tinct characters  are  brought  to  view.  Each  is  repre- 
sented with  divine  peculiarities;  and  exercising  divine 
prerogatives.  By  analogy  of  reasoning  it  is  a  fair  con- 
clusion that  these  are  three;  and  that  they  are  of 
divine  nature.  If  analogy  ceases  here,  and  does  not 
prove  that  these  three  are  one,  we  feel  no  need  of 
analogy.  The  Scriptures  are  decisive  on  this  point. 
They  expressly  declare  that  there  is  but  one  only 
living  and  true  God.  The  iirst  command  of  Jehovah 
is,  "Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  me."  If 
the  sacred  Scriptures  present  to  our  view  three  dis- 
tinct characters  with  divine  peculiarities,  and  at  the 
same  time  expressly  assert  that  there  is  but  one  God, 
what  shall  be  done  with  this  seeming  contrariety? 
Shall  we  reject  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  because 
we  cannot  clearly  reconcile  it  with  the  divine  unity? 
Why  may  we  not  as  well  reject  the  doctrine  of  the 
divine  unity  because  we  cannot  reconcile  it  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity?  Why  may  we  not,  on  the 
same  principle,  reject  both  doctrines  because  we  can- 
not reconcile  them? 

Our  inability  to  comprehend  a  subject  is  not  a  con- 
clusive evidence  against  its  truth.  Our  inability  to 
reconcile  two  propositions  does  not  prove  that  they 
are  not  reconcilable;  nor  does  it  prove  that  both,  or 
either  of  them,  are  untrue.  If  we  had  a  perfect 
knowledge  of  the  divine  nature,  we  might  say  what 
could  be,  or  what  could  not  be  predicated  of  it.  But 
we  are  not  competent  to  make  a  decision  of  this  kind. 
Propositions,  which  in  terms  are  contradictory,  carry 
on  the  face  of  them  their  own  falsity.  Propositions, 
which  are  not  contradictory  and  are  not  self-evident 
must  be  proved  to  be  true  or  false  by  extraneous  evi- 


292  SUMMARY    VIEW    OF    THE    EVIDENCES 

dence.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  not  self-evident. 
It  never  has  been  intuitively  perceived;  nor  has  it  been 
discovered  merely  by  the  power  of  reason.  It  is  a 
doctrine  of  revelation.  If  it  be  substantiated  from  this 
source  it  stands.  If  it  be  not  substantiated  from  this 
source,  it  falls.  Revelation  represents  the  Father  to  be 
divine;  the  Son  to  be  divine;  the  Holy  Spirit  to  be 
divine;  and  it  represents  only  one  God.  These  rep- 
resentations are  not,  in  terms,  a  contradiction.  We 
may,  upon  divine  authority,  safely  believe  both  the 
plurality  and  the  unity  of  God. 

OBJECTIONS  ANSWERED. 

The  union  of  divine  and  human  nature  is  a  doctrine., 
which  appears  to  be  taught  in  the  Scriptures.  -  It  is 
a  doctrine,  which,  it  is  presumed,  was  never  invented 
b^  reason;  and,  it  is  presumed,  will  never  fall  entirely 
within  the  compass  of  a  finite  understanding.  But  the 
unsearchable  nature  of  the  doctrine  affords  not  a 
shadow  of  proof  against  its  truth.  If  such  a  union  be 
contradictory,  or  absurd,  it  is  presumed  that  it  is  not 
revealed  in  the  Scriptures.  It  cannot  be,  that  the 
Author  of  human  reason  requires  a  belief  of  that, 
which  contradicts  the  conclusions  of  that  power  of  the 
mind.  It  is  the  province  of  reason  to  decide  what  is 
revealed;  but  it  is  not  the  province  of  reason  to  fathom 
all  revealed  truth.  Reason  teaches,  that  a  system  of 
religion,  which  embraces  the  infinite  Spirit  and  an 
eternal  state  of  existence,  is  not  within  the  bounds  of 
finite  comprehension. 

It  appears  to  be  not  unreasonable,  nor  unphilosoph- 
ical  to  suppose  that  divinity  was  united  with  humanity. 
In  every  human  action,  there  is  a  co-operation  of 
divine  power.  Without  the  supporting  influence  of 
the  Deity,  creatures  can  neither  think  nor  move. 
This  concurrence  of  divine  and  human  operation  is  as 
far  beyond  our  comprehension  as  the  union  of  the 
Son  of  God  with  the  Son  of  man.     Man  is  composed 


OF    THE    DIVINITY    OF   JESUS    CHRIST.  293 

of  matter  and  spirit.  Rational,  sensitive,  and  corpo- 
real powers  unite  in  one  person.  It  appears  to  be  no 
more  contradictory,  that  diviiie  power  should  be  united 
with  these,  than  that  they  should  be  united  with  each 
other. 

There  was  a  more  special  connexion  between  divine 
operation  and  those  holy  men  of  old,  who  spoke  and 
wrote  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  There 
is  another  and  different  operation  of  divine  power 
upon  men,  in  causing  them  to  be  born  again.  The 
Holy  Spirit  dwells  in  those,  who  have  been  subjects  of 
this  divine  influence.  "Know  ye  not  that  ye  are  the 
temple  of  God,  and  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwelleth  in 
you?"  1  Cor.  3:16.  In  these  cases,  there  is  a  certain 
connexion  of  divinity  with  humanity;  and  in  each  case 
divine  operation  is  different.  If  it  be  not  unphilosoph- 
ical  to  admit  this  connexion  of  divinity  and  human 
nature,  it  appears  to  be  not  unphilosophical  to  admit 
that  connexion,  which  the  Scriptures  represent  to 
subsist  between  the  Son  of  man  and  the  Son  of  God. 
It  is  no  more  difficult  to  conceive  this  connexion  than 
it  is  to  conceive  the  immeasurable  gift  of  the  Spirit,  or 
divine  fulness  dwelhng  in  the  man,  Christ  Jesus.  If 
the  former  hypothesis  be  unphilosophical,  so  is  the 
latter. 

It  is  objected  by  some  that  it  is  not  agreeable  to 
sound  philosophy  to  suppose  that  divine  and  human 
nature  should  so  unite  that  they  constitute  but  one 
person.  We  shall  not  contend  for  the  phrase,  one 
person,  nor  for  the  propriety  of  it,  when  applied  to 
Jesus  Christ.  Viewed  in  his  human  and  divine  nature, 
he  is  different  from  all  other  beings;  and  it  is  obvious 
that  many  of  those  terms  and  phrases,  which  are  ap- 
propriate to  them,  cannot  be  applied  with  the  same 
propriety  to  him.  One  class  of  texts  proves  his 
humanity;  another  as  evidently  proves  his  divinity; 
and  from  both  classes  is  inferred  the  union  of  both 
natures. 


294  SUM3IARY    VIEW    OF    THE    EVIDENCES 

1.  To  this  it  is  objected  that  "it  divides  the  one 
Supreme  Being,  or  essence. 

2.  It  ascribes  to  one  part  of  the  indivisible  and 
immutable  essence,  a  property,  or  properties,  which 
the  others  do  not  possess. 

.3.  It  ascribes  two  natures  to  the  person  of  Christ, 
each  of  which  separately  considered,  possesses  all  the 
properties  necessary  to  constitute  personality. 

4.  It  ascribes  all  acts  and  sufferings  to  the  human 
nature,  that  can  be  ascribed  to  the  Mediator,  or  else 
supposes  the  immutable  Essence  capable  of  change, 
suffering,  and  death."  (See  Purve's  Humble  Attempt, 
&c  p.  87.) 

These  consequences,  it  is  apprehended,  do  not 
follow  from  the  admission  of  the  doctrine  under  con- 
sideration. Spirit  is  not,  like  matter,  divisible.  When 
we  speak  of  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Spirit,  we  do  not 
mean  three  distinct  and  separate  beings.  If  any  infer 
from  the  doctrine,  this  distinction  in  the  divine  nature, 
the  inference  is  their  own,  not  ours.  We  do  not 
attempt  to  explain  the  mode,  in  which  the  Father, 
Son  and  Holy  Spirit  subsist.  But  we  maintain,  that 
we  find  it  in  the  Scriptures,  as  we  apprehend,  that 
the  Father  is  divine;  that  the  Son  is  divine;  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  divine;  and  that  there  is  but  one  God. 

It  is  admitted  that  the  subject  is  mysterious;  but  it 
no  more  implies  a  division  of  divine  nature,  than  the 
omnipresence  of  God.  Those,  who  believe  his  exist- 
ence, believe  this  is  an  attribute  of  his  nature.  They 
believe  that  he  is  in  this  world,  and  exercises  his 
power,  wisdom,  and  goodness.  They  believe  that  he 
is  at  the  same  time  in  heaven,  exercising  his  power, 
wisdom,  and  goodness.  But  they  do  not  believe  there 
are  two  Gods;  nor  do  they  believe  that  divine  nature 
is  divided;  nor  do  we  infer  this  from  their  belief.  We 
believe  that  the  Father  was  in  heaven  exercising 
divine  attributes,  while  the  Son  was  upon  earth  exer- 
cising divine  attributes.  If  a  division  of  divine  nature 
can  be  justly  inferred  from  our  belief,   with  equal 


OF    THE    DIVINITY    OF    JESUS    CHRIST.  295 

justice  can  it  be  inferred  from  theirs.  Let  us,  for  a 
moment,  apply  their  argument  to  the  omnipresence  of 
God.  The  divine  Being  is  present  in  this  world  either 
wholly,  or  in  part.  If  he  be  wholly  in  this  world, 
then  he  is  not  in  heaven.  If  he  be  partly  in  this  world 
and  partly  in  heaven,  then  the  divine  Spirit  is  divisible 
and  is  composed  of  parts.  Again,  these  parts  are 
either  finite,  or  infinite.  If  they  be  finite,  it  follows 
that  two  finite  parts  make  one  infinite  whole.  If  they 
be  infinite,  it  follows  that  there  are  two  infinities  in 
the  divine  nature.  These  inferences  as  naturally 
follow  from  their  belief,  as  from  ours.  As  they  have 
drawn  these  conclusions  themselves,  it  belongs  to 
them,  not  to  us,  to  dispose  of  them. 

The  second  inference  of  the  objector  is  founded  on 
the  first,  as  far  as  it  relates  to  the  divisibility  of  the 
divine  nature;  and  we  would  apply  the  same  observa- 
tions. But  we  do  not  apply  properties  to  the  Father, 
which  are  not  applied  to  the  Son,  nor  do  we  applv 
properties  to  the  Son,  which  are  not  applied  to  the 
Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  By  properties  we  under- 
stand qualities  of  a  nature.  The  same  qualities  are 
attributed  by  the  inspired  writers  to  the  Son,  which 
are  attributed  to  the  Father.  Still  there  is  something 
peculiar  to  each.  What  this  something  is,  which  is 
the  ground  of  their  distinction  is  not  revealed.  But 
it  appears  that  as  the  Son  doeth  nothing  without  the 
Father,  so  the  Father  doeth  nothing  without  the 
Son;  and  that  they,  with  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  united 
in  their  operation  in  every  work. 

We  shall  not  attempt  to  explain  the  union  of  the 
Son  of  God  with  the  Son  of  man.  We  cannot  explain 
the  union  of  body  and  soul.  It  is  not  surprising  then 
that  we  cannot  explain  the  union  of  divine  and  human 
nature.  This  union  appears  to  be  taught  in  the  Scrip- 
tures; and  it  appears  no  more  like  absurdity  and  con- 
tradiction than  the  union  of  divine  fulness  with  the 
man  Christ  Jesus.  Are  we  charged  with  dividing  the 
divine  Essence,  because  we  maintain  that  the  Son  of 
God  was  united  with  the  Son  of  man?     The  charge 


296  SUMMARY    VIEW    OF    THE    EVIDENCES 

lies  with  equal  weight  against  those,  who  maintain 
that  divine  fulness,  or  the  immeasurable  gift  of  the 
Spirit  dwell  in  Christ.  The  fulness  of  the  Godhead, 
or  divinity  embraces  all  the  divine  perfections.  If  all 
divine  perfections  dwelt  in  Christ  when  he  was  upon 
earth,  we  retort  the  question  upon  the  objector, 
where  is  the  fulness  of  perfection  of  the  Father?  If 
the  Father,  in  the  plenitude  of  his  perfections,  dwelt 
in  the  man  Christ  Jesus  on  earth,  how  could  be  be,  at 
the  same  time,  in  heaven  without  a  division  of  his 
essence?  If  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  was 
united  with  the  human  nature  of  Jesus,  it  follows, 
according  to  the  argument  of  the  objector,  that 
the  person  of  divinity  is  united  to  the  person  of 
humanity;  and  of  course,  "the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  con- 
sists of  two  persons,  or  else  two  persons  are  one  per- 
son, or  united  in  one." 

To  obviate  this  conclusion,  recourse  has  been  had 
to  the  apostle's  prayer  for  the  Ephesians,  in  which  he 
requests  that  they  "might  be  filled  with  all  the  fulness 
of  God;"  Eph.  3:19.  From  this  it  is  inferred  that  the 
fulness  of  the  Godhead,  which  dwelt  in  Christ,  does 
not  differ  in  its  nature  from  that  divine  fulness,  which 
is  communicated  to  saints;  that  it  means  no  more  than 
that  divine  blessings  or  influences  were  abundantly 
bestowed  upon  him.  But  these  passages  do  not  appear 
to  be  parallel.  John  testifies  that  "of  his  (i.  e.  Christ's) 
fulness,  have  all  we  received."  From  this  it  appears 
that  it  was  the  same  thing  to  receive  the  fulness  of 
Christ,  and  the  fulness  of  God.  But  what  saint, 
prophet,  or  apostle  had  a  divine  fulness,  which  they 
could  impart  to  others?  The  primitive  Christians 
occasionally  received  those  extraordinary  influences  of 
the  Spirit,  which  were  called  the  fulness  of  Christ  or 
God.  But  it  is  not  said,  and  it  does  not  appear  that 
this  fulness  was  permanent  in  them.  There  is  evi- 
dence to  the  contrary.  The  fulness  of  God,  of  which 
they  were  partakers,  was,  therefore,  occasional  and 
temporary.     But  in  Christ  all  the  fulness  of  the  God- 


v 


aP   THE    DIVINITY    OF    JESUS    CHRIST.  297 

liead  (divinity)  dwelleth,   nuroinei.     The  preposition 
connected  with  this  verb  adds  force  to  its  meaning. 
It  therefore  signifies,  not  to  occupy  occasionally,  but 
to  dwell  permanently.     This  divine  fulness  not  only 
dwelt  permanently  in  Christ,   but   it   dwelt   in   him 
bodily;    i.   e.  truly  and   substantially.     We  find   that 
holy  men  have  resembled,  in  a  degree,  almost  all  the 
features  of  Christ's  character.     But  in  every  trait  of 
his  character  there  is  ?\  visible  superiority,  which  dis- 
tinguishes divinity  from   humanity.     Another  conse- 
quence,  which   has  been  drawn  from  the  doctrine  of 
the  union  of  human  and  divine  nature  in  Jesus  Christ 
is,  "It   ascribes  all  acts  and  sufferings   to  the  human 
nature,  that  can  be  ascribed  to  the  Mediator,  or  else 
supposes  the  immutable    Essence  capable  of  change, 
suffering  and   death."      This   consequence   does   not 
appear  to  follow  from  the  doctrine.     It  is  not  admitted 
that  the  sufferings  of  the  humanity  of  Christ   wholly 
constituted  the  atonement.     It  is  maintained  that  the 
divine  Son,  if  he  did  not  suffer  pain,  suffered  ignominy. 
He  suffered  a  state  of  humiliation.     He  suffered  the 
condition  of  a  servant,   the   reproach   of  the  cross. 
It  is  maintained  that  this   suffering  gave   value,  gave 
efficacy  to  the  sacrifice,  which  was  offered  upon  the 
cross.     The  Son  of  God  could  suffer  this  without  sus- 
taining any  change  in  his  nature.     The  perfections  of 
divinity  were  not  diminished  by  union  with  humanity. 
The  Son  of  God  was  no  less  entitled  to  divine  honors, 
when  he  was   reviled    upon  the  cross,  than  when  he 
was  seated  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Father.     We  do 
not   hold   that  merely  the   human  nature   of  Christ 
mediates  between  God  and  man.     We  maintain  that 
in   both  natures  he  acts   in   the  office   of  Mediator. 
This  does  not  involve   the  inconsistency  of  mediating 
between  himself  and  the    human   race;    because  he 
mediates   between   the   Father   and   them,    and    the 
Father  is  not  the  Son. 

To  the   doctrine  of  Christ's  divinity  and  humanity 
it  is  objected,  "He  would  not  say,  himself  could  not 
38 


298  SUMMARY   VIEW    OP   THE    EVIDENCES 

do,  or  did  not  know  the  things  which  all  this  while 
himself  could  do  and  did  know  very  well;  as  to  be 
sure,  if  he  was  the  supreme  God,  he  could  and  did. 
For  this  were  to  make  him  say  what  is  most  false, 
and  to  equivocate  in  the  most  deceitful  manner."  (See 
Emlyn.^  This  position  is  not  correct.'  Christ  could, 
tvith  truth  and  agreeably  to  the  coEsfmon  usage  of  lan- 
guage, deny  that  of  ore  nature,  ,^ich  belongs  to  the 
other.  He  could,  as  Son  of  m^ii,  truly  say,  he  knew 
not  the  day  of  the  dissolution  of  the  world,  while,  as 
Son  of  God,  he  knew  the  time.  The  Scriptures  rep- 
resent man  as  mortal.  Job  calls  him  '■'•mortal  man.^^ 
The  same  volume  of  inspiration  represents  man  to  be 
immortal  Christ  hath  brought  life  and  immortality 
to  light  by  the  Gospel.  Must  the  Scriptures  be 
charged  with  deceit,  equivocation  and  falsehood, 
because,  at  one  time,  they  call  man  mortal;  and  at 
other  times  represent  him  to  be  immortal;  because, 
at  those  particular  times,  they  do  not  express  any 
limitation?  This  accusation  lies  with  as  much  force 
against  the  word  of  God  in  its  representation  of  man, 
as  against  Jesus  Christ  in  speaking  of  himself,  some- 
times in  one  nature,  sometimes  in  the  other.  It  is  a 
usual  manner  of  speaking  among  people  to  say,  1  am 
mortal;  and  at  other  times  to  say,  1  am  immortal;  and 
at  the  time  to  express  no  limitation.  They  are  under- 
stood. They  are  not  charged  with  falsehood,  be- 
cause it  is  known  and  admitted  that  they  are  composed 
of  a  material  and  mortal  nature;  and  also  of  an  im- 
material and  immortal  nature.  If  we  admit  that 
human  and  divine  nature  were  united  in  Jesus  Christ, 
we  perceive  that  he  might,  without  equivocation, 
sometimes  speak  of  himself  as  human,  and  at  other 
times  as  divine;  that  the  apostle  might,  at  one  time,  call 
him  '■Hhe  man  Christ  Jesns;^^  and,  at  another  time,  call 
him  "//ic  Lord  from  heaven.''^  If  Christ  and  his  apos- 
tles had  always  spoken  of  him  as  a  man,  the  conclusion 
would  be  fair,  that  he  was  only  a  man.  U  they  had 
always  spoken  of  him  as  God,  it  would  be  a  fair  con- 


OP   THE    DIVINITY    OP    JESUS    CHRIST  299 

elusion  that  he  was  only  divine.  But  as  they  some- 
times speak  of  him  possessing  human  qualities,  and  at 
other  times  possessing  divine  perfections,  the  conclu- 
sion is  equally  fair  that  he  is  both  human  and  divine. 
The  Jews  understood  Christ  to  make  himself  equal 
with  God  and  to  make  himself  God;  and  they  charged 
him  with  blasphemy.  If  he  had  been  merely  a  man, 
it  is  presumed  he  would  have  repelled  the  charge  in 
direct  terms.  But  instead  of  this,  he  took  them  on 
their  own  ground,  and  refuted  them  on  their  own 
principles.  He  neither  denied  nor  acknowledged  his 
divinity;  but  shewed  his  accusers  that  upon  their  own 
principles  he  was  justly  exempt  from  the  charge  of 
blasphemy.  This  was  all  he  needed  to  do,  and  this 
he  did  do.  There  were  times,  in  which  Christ  ex- 
pressed his  meaning  in  ambiguous  language.  When 
people  were  speaking  of  the  temple,  he  said,  "destroy 
this  temple,  and  in  three  days  I  will  rear  it  up." 
They  understood  him  to  speak  of  the  temple  of  the 
Jews.  He  often  spoke  in  parables,  which  the  multi- 
tude did  not  understand.  Jesus  said,  "verily,  verily,  I 
say  unto  you,  if  a  man  keep  my  saying,  he  shall  never 
see  death.''''  The  Jews  understood  him  to  speak  of 
natural  death;  and  he  did  not  correct  their  mistake. 
But  who  dares  accuse  him  with  deception,  prevarication, 
and  falsehood'^ 


ON  THE  DISTINCTION  AND  DIVINITY    OF    THE 
HOLY  SPIRIT. 


The  same  sacred  Scriptures,  which  disclose  the  unify 
of  God,  disclose  also  certain  distinctions,  or  a  plurality 
m  the  divine  nature.  Immediately  after  it  is  related 
that  God  created  the  heaven  and  the  earth,  it  is  re- 
lated that  "the  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon  the  face  of 
the  waters."  This  difference  of  phraseology  used  to 
express  divine  operations,  affords  evidence  that  there 
IS  m  the  divine  nature  ground  for  certain  distinctions. 
If  the  Spirit  of  God  were  in  no  respect  different  from 
God,  it  is  hard  to  conceive  why  the  inspired  historian 
should  make  so  sudden  change  of  the  divine  name; 
that  he  should  first  use  a  noun  of  plural  number  and 
then  a  noun  singular,  which  was  embraced  in  that 
plurality.  When  such  distinctions  are  made  in  the 
inspired  writings  they  are  worthy  of  notice  and  inves- 
tigation. The  Spirit,  under  various  names,  is  a  prom- 
inent character  in  the  Bible.  From  his  works,  his 
names,  his  attributes,  and  his  connexion  with  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  may  be  inferred  his  nature  and 
character. 

The  works  of  the  Spirit  are  an  evidence  of  his  par- 
ticular agency,  and  of  his  divinity.  When  the  heaven 
and  earth  were  created,  "the  earth  was  without  form, 
and  void;  and  darkness  was  upon  the  face  of  the 
deep."  At  this  time,  when  matter  was  in  a  chaotic 
state,  and  there  was  no  vitality  in  the  shapeless  mass, 
"The  Spirit  of  God  moved  upon"  (or  hovered  over 


ON    THE   DISTINCTION   AND   DIVINITY,    &C.  301 

ilSri^D)  "the  face  of  the  waters."  At  this  early- 
stage  of  creation,  the  water  was  not  collected  into 
separate  bodies,  but  covered  the  whole  earth.  In 
the  original,  the  word,  which  is  translated  Spirit,  also 
signifies  wind.  Some  have,  therefore,  supposed  that 
only  the  wind  of  God  passed  over  the  face  of  the 
waters.  But  there  are  objections  to  this  construction. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  the  subtil  fluid,  the  atmos- 
phere, was  then  created.  If  it  were  created  as  soon 
as  the  grosser  matter  of  the  earth,  it  can  hardly  be 
supposed  that  it  was  put  in  motion  so  as  to  become 
wind  before  the  light  and  heat  of  the  sun  existed.  It 
is  more  natural  to  suppose  that  the  Spirit  of  God 
organized  the  matter,  which  was  created,  and  infused 
into  it  prolific  qualities.  If  it  is  the  peculiar  province 
of  the  Spirit  to  give  spiritual  life  and  restore  order,  it 
is  easy  to  suppose  that  part  of  his  work  was  to  give 
natural  life  and  establish  order.  If  God,  without 
manifested  distinctions  of  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  cre- 
ated all  things,  it  is  not  absurd  to  attribute  to  each, 
when  these  distinctions  were  disclosed,  the  whole 
work,  or  any  of  its  parts. 

^'By  his  Spirit  he  hath  garnished  the  heavens;  his 
hand  hath  formed  the  crooked  serpent;"  i.  e.  a  con- 
stellation of  this  name.  It  cannot  reasonably  be  sup- 
posed that  this  text  imports  that  by  wind  he  hath 
decorated  the  sky  with  stars  and  planets;  neither  can 
it  be  supposed  that  in  connexion  with  this  it  would  be 
added  that  his  hand  had  formed  a  constellation  of  a 
certain  name.  But  let  it  be  admitted,  as  it  is  in  our 
translation  of  the  Bible,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  adorned 
the  heavens  with  stars,  and  that  God's  hand  formed 
the  constellation,  the  crooked  serpent,  then  it  follows 
that  the  same  work,  which  is  attributed  to  God,  is 
also  attributed  to  his  Spirit. 

Elihu  reasoning  with  Job  said,  "The  Spirit  of  God 
hath  made  me,  and  the  breath  of  the  Almighty  hath 
given  me  life."  In  this  passage  he  connects  the  ope- 
ration of  the  Spirit  with  the  operation  of  the  Almighty; 


302  ON    THE    DISTINCTION    AND    DIVINITY 

to  one  he  attributes  his  life,  to  the  other  he  attributes 
his  formation.  After  man  was  formed  of  the  dust  of 
the  ground,  "the  Lord  God  breathed  into  his  nostrils 
the  breath  of  life;  and  man  became  a  living  soul."  In 
this  text  the  word  God,  in  the  original  is  of  plural  num- 
ber. Of  course,  it  embraces  all  that  is  included  in  the 
divine  plurality;  and  if  the  Spirit  of  God  is  any  thing, 
which  belongs  to  God,  it  embraces  him;  and  conse- 
quently the  life  of  the  first  man  may  be  attributed  to 
him.  The  Psalmist  in  his  meditation  on  the  majesty 
of  God,  the  dependence  of  creatures,  and  their  disso- 
lution, observes,  "Thou  sendest  forth  thy  Spirit,  they 
are  created"  (or  renewed.)  In  these  passages,  crea- 
tive power  is  attributed  to  the  Spirit. 

The  sending  of  teachers  to  instruct  mankind  is  ap- 
plied to  God;  to  Christ;  and  it  is  also  applied  to  the 
Holy  Ghost.  God,  by  his  prophet  Jeremiah,  said,  "I 
have  even  sent  unto  you  all  my  servants  the  prophets." 
"These  twelve  Jesus  sent  forth  and  commanded  them, 
saying,  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand.  Heal  the 
sick;  cleanse  the  lepers;  raise  the  dead;  cast  out 
devils;  freely  ye  have  received;  freely  give."  The 
Holy  Ghost  does  the  same  work.  The  prophet  Isaiah 
says,  "The  Lord  God  and  his  Spirit  hath  sent  me." 
"The  Holy  Ghost  said,  Separate  me  Barnabas  and 
Saul  for  the  work  whereunto  /  have  called  them.  So 
they  being  sent  forth  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  departed 
into  Sileucia.  Take  heed,  therefore,  unto  yourselves 
and  to  all  the  flock  over  the  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
hath  made  you  overseers." 

God,  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  communicate 
knowledge  to  teachers  and  people.  "They  shall  be 
all  taught  of  God.  God  shall  reveal  even  this  unto 
you."  The  apostle  Paul  speaking  of  the  Gospel  says, 
"Neither  was  I  taught  it  but  by  the  revelation  of 
Jesus  Christ."  The  Lord  Jesus  taught  him  what  to 
do  when  he  arrested  him  on  his  way  to  Damascus. 
The  Holy  Spirit  also  reveals  or  teaches.  "It  was 
revealed  unto  him,  (Simeon)  by  the  Holy  Ghost  that 


OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  303 

he  should  not  see  death  before  he  had  seen  the  Lord's 
Christ."  "The  Comforter — he  shall  teach  you  all 
things;  and  bring  all  things  to  your  remembranqc, 
whatsoever  I  have  said  unto  you."  God  spake  by 
those,  whom  he  sent.  "God — spake  in  time  past  unto 
the  Fathers  by  the  prophets.  The  Holy  Spirit  spake 
by  the  apostles.  Christ  cautioned  his  disciples  not  to 
premeditate  what  they  should  say  when  they  should 
be  brought  before  councils;  and  he  adds,  whatsoever 
shall  be  given  you  in  that  hour  that  speak  ye;  for  it 
is  not  ye  that  speak,  but  the  Holy  Ghost." 

God,  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  dwell  in  believers. 
*'Knovv  ye  not  that  ye  are  the  temple  of  God. — If 
any  man  defile  the  temple  of  God,  him  shall  God 
destroy;  for  the  temple  of  God  is  holy,  which  temple 
ye  are.  Ye  are  the  temple  of  the  living  God,  as  God 
hath  said,  I  will  dwell  in  them.  Know  ye  not  your 
ownselves  how  that  Jesus  Christ  is  in  you  except  ye 
be  reprobates?  That  Christ  may  dwell  in  your  hearts 
by  faith."  The  same  is  said  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
"Even  the  Spirit  of  truth — dwelleth  with  you  and 
shall  be  in  you.  He  that  raised  up  Christ  from  the 
dead  shall  also  quicken  your  mortal  bodies  by  his 
Spirit  that  dwelleth  in  you.  Know  ye  not  that  your 
body  is  the  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  in 
you?  Know  ye  not  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwelleth 
in  you.'*" 

Sanctification  is  attributed  to  the  Father,  to  the 
Son,  and  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  Jude  addressed  his 
epistle  "to  them  that  are  sanctified  by  God  the 
Father."  Of  Christ  it  is  said,  "both  he  that  sancti- 
fieth  and  they  who  are  sanctified  are  all  of  one;  for 
which  cause  he  is  not  ashamed  to  call  them  brethren." 
The  Holy  Spirit  is  the  Author  of  sanctification.  "God 
hath  from  the  beginning  chosen  you  to  salvation 
through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit." 

The  second  birth  is  attributed  indiscriminately  to 
God  and  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  "Which  were  born,  not 
of  blood, — but  of  God.     Whosoever  is  born  of  God 


304  ON    THE    DISTINCTION    AND    DIVINlTr^ 

doth  not  commit  sin.  Whatsoever  is  born  of  God 
overcometh  the  world."  The  same  work  is  attributed 
to  the  Spirit.  ''Except  a  man  be  born  of  water  and 
of  the  Spirit,  he  cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God. 
That  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit.  Not  by 
■  works  of  righteousness  which  we  have  done,  but 
according  to  his  mercy  he  saved  us  by  the  washing  of 
reireneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

God  leadeth  his  people.  "I  am  the  Lord  thy  God, 
which  leadeth  thee  by  the  way  thou  shouldest  go." 
Christ  leadeth  them.  "He  calleth  his  own  sheep  by 
name  and  leadeth  them."  The  Holy  Spirit  does  the 
office  of  leader.  "As  many  as  are  led  by  the  Spirit 
of  God,  they  are  the  sons  of  God.  If  ye  be  led  by 
the  Spirit,  ye  are  not  under  the  law."  Not  only  God 
and  Christ  are  called  life;  but  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
called  by  this  name.  "The  Spirit  is  ///e."  He  is  the 
Author  of  spiritual  life. 

The  dead  are  raised  by  the  Father,  by  the  Son 
and  by  the  Spirit.  "The  Father  raiseth  up  the 
dead  and  qulckeneth  theoi."  "We  should  not  trust 
in  ourselves,  but  in  God,  which  raiseth  the  dead." 
Christ  is  the  resurrection  and  the  life.  "The  Son 
qulckeneth  whom  he  will."  "Destroy  this  temple 
and  in  three  days  I  will  raise  it  up."  The  resurrec- 
tion of  Christ's  body  is  attributed  to  the  Holy  Spirit. 
"Christ — being  put  to  death  in  the  flesh  but  quickened 
by  the  Spirit^ 

The  Holy  Spirit  strives  with  sinners.  When  the 
antediluvian  world  had  become  exceedingly  corrupt, 
God  declared  that  his  Spirit  should  not  always  strive 
with  man.  The  commands,  "Quench  not  the  Spirit; 
grieve  not  the  Spirit  of  God,"  imply  that  people  are 
the  subjects  of  the  operation  of  the  Spirit.  The 
declaration  of  Stephen  in  answer  to  his  accusation^ 
"Ye  do  always  resist  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  your  fathers 
did,  so  do  ye,"  supposes  that  the  Holy  Spirit  exercises 
influence  upon  the  human  mind.  He  convinces  of  sin. 
He  changes  the  heart.     He  sanctifies  human  nature. 


OP    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  305 

Where  he  has  begun  a  good  work  he  will  carry  It  on 
until  the  day  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  Spirit  also  helpeth 
our  infirmities,  for  we  know  not  what  we  should  pray 
for  as  we  ought;  but  the  Spirit  itself  maketh  inter- 
cession ibr  us. 

The  texts,  which  have  just  been  quoted  attribute 
certain  works  to  the  Spirit.  It  is  evident  that  the 
name  Spirit  or  Holy  Spirit  does  not  signify  Father  nor 
Son;  for  it  is  used  both  in  connexion  with  them  and  it 
is  used  separately.  Why  should  he  be  represented 
as  the  Author  of  different  works,  if  there  were  not 
some  ground  of  distinction  in  the  divine  Nature,  by 
which  he  could  act,  in  a  certain  sense,  distinctly  from 
the  Father  and  the  Son?  Some  divine  works  arc  per- 
formed by  the  divine  Being  in  plurality.  Other  works 
are  performed  in  a  particular  manner  by  the  Father, 
or  by  the  Son,  or  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  the  economy 
of  redemption  each  has  his  peculiar  office  and  work. 
They  act  so  far  distinctly  that  each  performs  works, 
peculiar  to  his  office.  They  act  so  far  unitedly  that 
some  of  the  same  works  are  attributed  to  each. 
From  the  divine  works  there  appears  to  be  as  much 
distinction  between  the  Spirit  and  the  Son,  or  the 
Spirit  and  the  Father,  as  there  is  between  the  Son 
and  the  Father;  and  the  Spirit  appears  to  have  a 
particular  office  and  work  no  less  than  either. 

The  texts,  which  have  been  quoted,  not  only  rep- 
resent the  Holy  Spirit  acting  in  a  distinct  office,  but 
they  represent  him  acting  in  union  with  the  Father 
and  the  Son.  The  same  works,  which  are  attributed 
to  them  are  also  attributed  to  him.  The  act  of  crea- 
tion, of  sending  teachers,  of  instructing  them,  of  speak- 
ing by  them,  of  dwelling  in  believers  and  leading  them; 
of  changing  the  heart  and  sanctifying  it,  and  of  raising 
the  dead  arc  attributed  to  him,  and  to  the  Father  and 
the  Son.  If  he  were  not  divine  he  would  not  be 
united  with  them  in  these  divine  works.  If  he  were 
not,  in  some  respect,  distinct,  they  would  not  be  attrib- 
uted to  him.  Although  there  is  a  distinction  in  the 
39 


306  ON    THE   DISTINCTION    AND   DIVINITY 

divine  nature;  yet  there  is  such  a  unity  that  man  J 
things,  which  are  predicated  of  one  are  predicated  of 
the  others. 

It  belongs  pecuh'arly  to  the  office  of  the  Spirit  in 
the  work  of  salvation  to  strive  with  sinners;  to  con- 
vince them  of  sin;  to  change  their  hearts;  to  carry  on 
the  work  of  sanctrfication;  to  give  light  and  comfort  ta 
believers.  He  strove  with  the  old  world  to  reclaim 
them.  He  strove  with  sinners  in  the  apostles'  daySy 
and  he  has  striven  with  them  in  every  age.  It  is  hcy 
Vi^ho  changeth  the  disposition  of  the  heart;  guides  the 
mind  into  all  truth,  and  administers  consolation.  In  the 
apostolic  age,  he  was  the  Author  of  miraculous  gifts. 
At  a  time  when  the  apostles  were  together,  "There 
came  a  sound  from  heaven  as  of  a  rushing  mighty 
wind,  and  it  filled  the  house  where  they  were  sitting. 
And  there  appeared  unto  them  cloven  tongues,  like 
as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  upon  each  of  them.  And  they 
were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  began  to 
speak  with  other  tongues  as  the  Spirit  gave  them 
utterance."  The  multitude,  which  was  composed  of 
many  nations,  heard  them  speak  in  their  own  language.^ 

These  works  of  the  Spirit  require  divine  attributes. 
To  pass  over  those  works,  which  he  performed  in  com- 
mon with  the  Father  and  the  Son,  those  acts,  which 
are  peculiar  to  his  distinct  office  must  be  attributed 
to  divine  power.  If  it  required  divine  power  to  cre- 
ate, it  required  equal  power  to  repair  the  defaced 
works  of  creation.  If  it  required  divine  power  to 
form  man,  it  requires  the  same  power  to  renew  his 
fallen  nature.  It  requires  as  great  etfort  to  change,  as  to 
form  a  nature.  The  Spirit,  without  doing  violence  to 
the  human  will,  and  without  infringing  upon  moral 
freedom,  changes  the  disposition  of  the  heart.  Power 
less  than  divine  cannot  change  nature  or  its  laws. 

In  order  to  strive  with  man;  to  change  his  heart, 
and  to  lead  him  in  the  ways  of  truth  and  holiness,  it 
is  necessary  to  have  a  perfect  knowledge  of  the  human 
mind.  If  the  Holy  Spirit  did  not  know  the  disposi- 
tion of  all  hearts,  he  might   not  know   on  which  to 


OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  307 

feestow  his  influei)ce,  and  what  degrees  of  energy  to 
put  forth,  to  elTectuate  a  change  of  different  hearts. 
He  needs  to  know  what  is  in  man,  in  order  to  remove 
the  evil  and  set  him  right.  It  is  not  doubted  that  holy 
and  fallen  angels  have  access  to  the  human  mind  and 
have  influence  upon  it.  But  the  sacred  scriptures  do 
not  attribute  a  power  of  changing  the  heart  to  either. 

The  apostle  Paul,  speaking  of  those  great  prepara- 
tions, which  are  made  in  the  other  world  for  those, 
who  love  God,  adds,  "God  hath  revealed  them  to  us 
by  his  Spirit;  for  the  Spirit  searcheth  all  things,  yea, 
the  deep  things  of  God."  The  deep  things  of  God 
relate  to  the  salvation  of  man.  These  things  the 
angels  desire  to  look  into;  but  by  reason  of  their  finite 
powers,  it  appears,  they  are  unable.  But  the  Spirit 
searcheth  these  things,  and  is  perfectly  acquainted 
with  them.  He  as  fully  knows  the  things  of  God,  as 
the  Spirit  of  a  man  knows  the  things  of  a  man. 

The  revelation  of  the  divine  will  by  the  Spirit,  is 
an  argument  in  favor  of  his  divine  knowledge.  "God 
hath  revealed  them  unto  us  by  his  Spirit."  He  did 
not  reveal  them  to  his  Spirit;  for  the  Spirit  of  God 
knoivcth  the  things  of  God.  These  things  the  Spirit 
communicated  to  the  prophets  and  apostles.  "Holy 
men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  HoJv 
Ghost." 

Wisdom  is  also  attributed  to  the  Spirit.  When  it 
was  prophesied  that  a  Branch  should  grow  out  of  the 
root  of  Jesse,  it  was  also  prophesied,  "the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord  shall  rest  upon  him;  the  Spirit  of  wisdom  and 
understanding,  the  Spirit  of  counsel  and  might,  the 
Spirit  of  knowledge." 

The  communications  made  by  the  Spirit  to  ra,en, 
afford  evidence  of  his  particular  agency  and  divinity. 
"There  are  diversities  of  gifts,  but  the  same  Spirit. 
To  one  is  given  by  the  Spirit,  the  word  of  wisdom;  to 
another  the  word  of  knowledge  by  the  same  Spirit. 
To  another  faith  by  the  same  Spirit;  to  another  the 
gifts  of  healing  by  the  same  Spirit;  to  another  the 


5 
308  O.N    THE    DISTINCTION    AND    DIVINITY 

working  of  miracles;  to  another  prophecy;  to  another 
discerning  ot"  spirits;  to  another  diverse  kinds  of 
tongues.  But  all  these  worketh  that  one  and  the  self 
same  Spirit,  dividing  to  every  man  severally  as  he 
xvilV  There  is  no  intimation  given  that  the  Spirit 
derived  his  power  and  authority  from  a  superior  Being 
to  bestojv  these  miraculous  gifts  on  the  apostles. 
When  the  prophets  and  apostles  wrought  miracles, 
they  attributed  the  works  ultimately  to  God.  But  the 
Spiirt  distributed  these  gifts  as  he  would.  This  con- 
veys the  idea  of  his  independence.  If  miraculous 
operations  are  an  evidence  of  the  existence  of  God, 
they  are,  when  attributed  absolutely  to  the  Holy 
Spirit,  an  equal  evidence  of  his  divinity. 

The  sacred  scriptures  afford  evidence  that  the 
Spirit  is  omnipresent.  Various  texts  convey  the  idea 
that  the  Influence  of  the  Spirit  is  shed  abroad  in  man- 
kind generally.  "My  Spirit  shall  not  always  strive 
with  man.  Ye  do  always  resist  the  Holy  Ghost;  as 
your  fathers  did,  so  do  ye."  The  influence  of  the 
Spirit  upon  believers  is  repeatedly  asserted  in  the 
word  of  God.  It  was  a  petition  of  the  Psalmist, 
"Take  not  thy  Holy  Spirit  from  me."  "The  Spirit 
itself  beareth  witness  with  our  spirit  that  we  are  the 
children  of  God."  If  operation  in  the  material  and  in- 
telligent world  forms  an  argument  in  favor  of  God's 
omnipresence,  operation  of  the  same  extent  in  the 
moral  world,  forms  an  equal  argument  in  favor  of  the 
omnipresence  of  the  Spirit,  and  consequently  of  liis 
divinity.  The  question  of  the  Psalmist,  "Whither 
shall  I  go  from  thy  Spirit?"  implies  that  it  was  impos- 
sible to  flee  from  his  presence. 

Goodness  is  attributed  to  the  Spirit.  The  Psalmist 
saith,  "Thy  Spirit  is  good."  Goodness  is  attributed 
to  the  Father  and  the  Son.  If  it  be  a  divine  attri- 
bute in  them,  there  is  no  cause  to  say,  it  is  not  a  divine 
attribute   when  applied  to  him. 

The  Spirit  is  eternal.  The  apostle  Paul  to  the 
Hebrews,  speaking  of  the  sacrifice   of  Christ,  says. 


OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  309 

"who  through  the  eternal  Spirit  offered  himself  with- 
out spot  to  God." 

The  names  given  to  the  Spirit  are  an  evidence  of 
his  divinity.  He  is,  by  way  of  eminence,  caDed  the 
Holy  Spirit.  This  title  is  equivalent  to  that  given  to 
God,  the  Holy  One.  It  is  with  peculiar  propriety 
that  he  is  called  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  Spirit  of  Holiness. 
He  is  not  only  holy  himself,  but  he  is  the  Author  of 
holiness  in  the  human  heart.  He  is  called  the  Spirit 
of  truth.  He  revealed  truth  to  the  prophets  and 
apostles;  led  them  into  all  truth,  and  enabled  them  to 
communicate  it  to  the  world.  When  he,  the  Spirit  of 
truth  is  come,  he  will  guide  you  into  all  truth,  and 
will  shew  you  things  to  come. 

He  is  called  the  Holy  Spirit  of  promise.  The 
Spirit  was  promised  through  the  medium  of  John  the 
Baptist.  Christ,  just  before  his  ascension  into  heaven, 
observed  to  his  disciples,  "I  send  the  promise  of  the 
Father  unto  you."  So  frequently  had  the  Spirit  been 
promised,  that  it  was  with  propriety  he  was  called 
"the  Promise,"  or  the  Spirit  of  promise.  He  is  also 
called  the  Spirit  of  wisdom  and  knowledge,  and  the 
eternal  Spirit.  Christ  styles  him  the  Comforter, 
Christ  said  to  his  disciples,  "the  Comforter,  which 
is  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Father  will  send 
in  my  name,  he  shall  teach  you  all  things.  If  I  go  not 
away  the  Comforter  will  not  come  unto  you."  He 
gives  comfort  to  sinners  by  changing  their  hearts  and 
giving  them  an  enjoyment,  which  they  never  before 
experienced.  He  gives  comfort  to  believers  by  in- 
creasing light  in  their  minds;  and  by  leading  them 
forward  toward  heaven.  He  witnesscth  with  their 
spirits  that  they  are  born  of  God. 

The  fruit  of  the  Spirit  is  love;  love  to  God  and  man. 
It  is  joy;  joy  arising  from  holy  affections  and  fiom 
divine  service.  It  is  pence:  peace  ol"  mind  and  peace 
in  society.  It  is  long-suffering;  it  is  a  patient  beai'- 
ing  of  injuries.     It  is  gentleness;  softness  of  manners. 


310  ON    THE   DISTINCTION    AND  DlVINWr 

It  is  goodness;  a  kind  disposition  carried  into  opera- 
tion. It  is  faith;  confidence  in  divine  promises,  and 
fidelity  in  trusts  and  engagements.  It  is  meekness; 
calmness  under  provocations.  It  is  temperance;  a 
moderate  use  of  the  bounties  of  providence.  These 
virtues  are  the  fruit  of  the  Spirit.  Such  holy  fruit 
indicates  that  the  Spirit  is  holy  and  divine. 

The  Father  and  the  Son  send  the  Holy  Spirit  to  do 
the  v?orks  of  his  office.  John  the  Baptist,  speaking 
of  Christ  said,  "He  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 
Ghost  and  with  fire."  Agreeably  to  this  declaration, 
Christ  after  his  ascension  sent  down  the  Holy  Spirit 
upon  his  apostles;  and  cloven  tongues  like  as  of  fire 
sat  upon  each  of  them,  and  they  were  filled  with  the 
Holy  Ghost.  "How  much  more  shall  your  heavenly 
Yather  give  the  Holy  Spirit  to  them  that  ask  him." 
"When  the  Comforter  is  come,  whom  I  will  send  unto 
you  from  the  Father,  even  the  Spirit  of  truth,  which 
proceedeth  from  the  Father."  Christ  saith,  "/  ivill 
send  him  unto  you."  "The  Holy  Ghost,  whom  God 
hath  given  to  them  that  obey  him.  Because  ye  are 
sons,  God  hath  sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into 
your  hearts,  crying.  Abba,  Father."  Because  the 
Spirit  is  sent  by  the  Father  and  the  Son,  it  is  proba- 
ble he  is  called  sometimes  the  Spirit  of  the  Father, 
and  sometimes  the  Spirit  of  Christ. 

If  the  Spirit  is  sent  by  the  Father  and  by  Christ, 
it  is  only  an  official  subjection;  it  ioaplies  no  inferiority 
of  nature.  The  covenant  of  redemption  was  made 
between  the  Blather  and  the  Son,  and  the  Spirit,  and 
they  are  employed  in  the  salvation  of  this  fallen  world. 
So  intimate  is  the  union  between  them  that  one  can  do 
nothing  without  the  other;  and  what  is  attributed  to 
one  is  generally  attributed  to  either;  and  yet  they  are 
so  distinct  that  particular  names,  offices  and  works 
are  given  to  each. 

Divine  honors  are  given  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  The 
ordinance  of  baptism  is  administered  in  the  name  of 
fhe  Father,  and  of  the  Sod,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 


OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  311 

By  this  ordinance  persons  are  consecrated  to  thesaeredi 
Three.  If  it  be  an  ascription  of  honor  to  the  Father 
to  consecrate  one's  self  or  his  oflspring  to  his  service, 
it  is  an  equal  honor  to  the  Son  to  make  such  consecra- 
tion to  him;  and  it  is  the  same  honor  to  the  Holy 
Spirit  to  make  the  same  consecration  to  him.  By 
making  a  dedication  to  the  Father,  Son  and  Spirit,  it 
conveys  an  idea  of  distinction  in  the  divine  nature. 
When  people  are  baptized  in,  or  into  the  name  ("not 
names")  of  the  Father,  Son  and  Spirit,  it  implies  that 
one  name,  the  name  God,  is  common  to  them  all.  It 
is  hard  to  conceive  why  these  three  are  unitedly 
named  in  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  if  there  be  not  a 
union  of  nature  subsisting  between  them,  and  the 
same  honor  is  not  conferred  on  each.  The  blessing, 
"which  the  apostle  Paul  pronounced  upon  the  Corin- 
thian church,  gives  the  same  honor  to  the  Spirit  as  to 
the  Father,  and  Son.  "The  grace  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  and  the  love  of  God,  and  the  communion  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  be  with  you  all."  Here  again  the  Three 
are  united,  and  the  same  honor  is  given  to  each. 

It  is  a  great  sin  to  oppose  or  speak  against  the 
Holy  Spirit.  The  prophet  Isaiah,  speaking  of  the 
Jews  under  the  blessings  of  Heaven,  says,  "They  re- 
belled and  vexed  his  Holy  Spirit;  therefore  he  was 
turned  to  be  their  enemy;  and  he  fought  against 
them."  Particular  commands  are  given  in  the  sacred 
scriptures  not  to  sin  against  the  Spirit.  "Grieve  not 
the  Holy  Spirit  of  God.  Quench  not  the  Spirit."  If 
there  were  not  something  in  the  divine  nature  pecu- 
liar to  him,  it  is  hard  to  conceive  why  he  should  be 
singled  out  by  name;  and  his  rights  be  secured  by  a 
barrier  of  divine  commands.  The  martyr  Stephen 
addressed  his  unbelieving  audience  as  great  sinners, 
because  they  always  resisted  the  Holy  Ghost.  So 
great  is  the  guilt  of  the  sin  against  the  Holy  Spirit, 
that  the  apostle  Paul  expressly  declares  that  it  is  im- 
possible for  those,  who  were  made  partakers  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  if  they  fall  away,  to  renew  them  again 


312  ON    THE    DISTINCTION    AND    DIVINITY 

to  repentance.  There  is  a  sin  unto  death.  Supplica- 
tion is  not  to  be  made  to  God  for  its  remission.  This 
is  thought  by  many  to  be  a  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost. 

The  apostle  Peter  charged  Ananias  and  Sapphira 
with  tempting  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord;  with  lying  to 
the  Holy  Ghost.  He  added,  "thou  hast  not  lied  unto 
men,  but  unto  God."  It  is  noticable  that,  in  these 
passages,  lying  to  the  Holy  Ghost  is  lying  to  God.  So 
great  was  their  sin  that  their  lives  were  miraculously 
taken  from  them. 

Christ,  in  answer  to  the  Pharisees  who  accused  him 
of  casting  out  devils  by  Beelzebub,  said,  "All  manner 
of  sin  and  blasphemy  shall  be  forgiven  unto  men,  but 
the  blasphemy  against  the  Holy  Ghost  shall  not  be 
forgiven  unto  men.  And  whosoever  speaketh  a  word 
against  the  Son  of  man,  it  shall  be  forgiven  him;  but 
whosoever  speaketh  a  word  against  the  Holy  Ghost, 
it  shall  not  be  forgiven  him,  neither  in  this  world, 
neither  in  that  which  is  to  come."  This  declaration 
of  the  Savior  proves  the  great  criminality  of  sin  against 
the  Holy  Spirit.  Whether  it  is  more  criminal  in  its 
nature  to  speak  against  the  Holy  Spirit,  than  it  is  to 
speak  against  the  Father  or  the  Son,  it  is  not  the  pro- 
vince of  human  reason  to  decide.  It  is  sufficient  that 
Christ  has  said,  this  sin  is  unpardonable.  The  decision 
of  divine  authority  upon  this  subject  proves  that  it  is, 
at  least,  as  criminal  to  sin  against  him,  as  it  is  to  sin 
against  the  Father  or  Son.  This  is  a  forcible  evidence 
in  proof  of  the  Spirit's  distinction,  of  his  divinity,  and 
of  his  claim  to  divine  service. 

When  the  sacred  scriptures  represent  the  Holy 
Spirit,  possessing  certain  attributes,  and  acting  in  a 
certain  office;  when  they  give  him  divine  names,  attri- 
bute to  him  divine  properties,  and  divine  works; 
ascribe  to  him  divine  honors,  and  represent  sin  against 
him  to  be  the  only  one  which  is  unpardonable,  there 
appears  to  be  as  much  proof  of  his  distinction  and 
divinity,  as  there  is  of  the  distinction  and  divinity  of 
the  Father  or  Son. 


OP    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  313 

1.  It  is  proper  to  notice  some  objeclions,  which 
are  brought  against  the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
It  is  thought  by  some  that  the  Hoiy  Spirit  is  the  ful- 
ness of  the  Godhead;  or  the  productive,  efficient 
emanations  of  divine  fuhicss;  that  the  Holy  Spirit 
bears  the  same  relation  to  God  as  the  rays  of  the  sun 
bear  to  the  sun. 

This  comparison  appears  to  be  defective.  The  rays 
of  the  sun  are  not  the  fulness  of  the  sun.  They  are 
not  a  source  from  which  light  and  heat  proceed.  It 
is  not  philosophical  to  say,  light  proceeds  from  light; 
and  heat  proceeds  from  heat.  The  rays  of  the  sun 
depend  on  the  sun.  If  the  sun  were  extinguished,  his 
rays  would  cease.  Subordination,  but  not  dependence, 
is  attributed,  in  the  scriptures,  to  the  Spirit.  They 
attribute  to  him  sovereignty,  when  they  represent  him 
distributing  miraculous  gifts  severally  as  he  will.  If 
the  Holy  Spirit  be  but  an  emanation  of  the  Deity,  it 
appears  highly  improper  that  a  proper  name  should 
be  given  him;  that  divine  attributes  should  be  attrib- 
uted to  him;  and  that  he  should  be  represented  in  an 
official  capacity.  If  he  be  sometimes  represented 
passively,  or  as  the  operation  or  effect  of  the  Deity, 
it  is  when  he  acts  in  his  office  in  subordination  to  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  or  when  his  operations  are 
spoken  of. 

2.  The  distinction  and  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  denied,  because  he  is  called  the  Spirit  o/*  God;  as 
divine  power  is  called  the  power  of  God;  as  a  human 
spirit  is  called  the  spirit  of  a  man.  Hence  it  is  infer- 
red that  the  Spirit  of  God  bears  the  same  relationship 
to  God  as  his  attributes  bear  to  him;  or  as  the  spirit 
of  a  man  bears  to  a  man.  It  is  true  the  Holy  Spirit 
is  represented  as  something  belonging  to  God.  So 
the  Father  and  the  Son  are  represented  as  something 
belonging  to  God,  or  the  divine  nature.  But  this  does 
not  deprive  them  of  divinity.  The  Holy  Spirit  is 
sometimes  called  the  Spirit  of  the  Father,  and  some- 
times he  is  called  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  If  the  Holy 
40 


314  ON    THE    DISTINCTION    AND    DIVINITY 

Spirit  bears  the  same  relation  to  the  Father  and  Son 
as  the  spirit  of  a  man  bears  to  a  man,  and  the  Father 
and  Son  be  two  entirely  distinct  beings,  it  follows  that 
there  are  two  Holy  Spirits.  It  is  probable  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  called  the  Spirit  of  God  or  of  the  Father, 
because  he  is  sent  by  him  and  acts  in  subordination  to 
him.  The  spirit  of  man  does  not  mean  the  man,  so 
the  Holy  Spirit  of  God  does  not  mean  the  divine 
nature  without  its  distinctions;  but  it  means  one  of  the 
divine  plurality. 

3.  ''The  breath  of  the  Lord  is  used  as  synony- 
mous with  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord.  The  hand  of  the 
Lord  and  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  are  used  as  synony- 
mous. I'he  finger  of  God  and  the  Spirit  of  God  are 
synonymous."  From  this  statement  it  is  inferred  that 
it  is  not  proper  or  respectful  to  speak  of  one  self-ex- 
istent person  as  the  breath,  the  hand,  the  finger  of 
another  co-equal  person. 

In  reply  to  this  objection,  it  is  worthy  of  notice  that 
the  origuial  word,  which  is  translated  spirit,  also  sig- 
nifies breath,  or  wind.  As  wind  is  a  powerful,  subtle, 
invisible  agent,  there  is  a  propriety  in  giving  the  same 
name  to  the  Spirit,  whose  operations  are  powerful, 
subtle  and  invisible.  It  is  a  striking  trait  in  the 
Hebrew  language  that  one  word  is  used  to  signify 
different  things,  when  there  is  a  striking  analogy  or 
resemblance  between  those  thinsfs.  Because  the 
Spirit  is  called  by  a  name,  which  signifies  breath  or 
wind,  it  does  not  follow  that  he  is  this  substance. 
When  God  is  called  a  Rock,  it  does  not  mean  that  he 
is  a  rock,  but  that  there  is  a  striking  resemblance  be- 
tween them.  It  is  no  more  disrespectful  to  the  Spirit 
to  call  him  by  a  name  signifying  breath  or  wind,  than 
it  is  to  call  God  a  fire,  and  Christ  a  fountain.  It  is  not 
disrespectful  to  apply  pertinently  figurative  language 
to  the  divine  nature. 

Because  people  work  with  their  hands  or  fingers, 
God  is  said  to  work  in  the  same  manner.  As  the 
Spirit  is  in  his  hand  to  send  him   where  he   please! h, 


OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  315 

it  is  proper  to  s;iy  by  a  figure  of  speech,  when  he 
worketh  by  his  Spirit,  that  he  worketh  with  his  hand. 
This  mode  of  speech  is  adapted  to  our  capacities. 
We  have  not  an  adequate  idea  of  the  operations  of 
pure  Spirit. 

4.  As  the  sending  or  giving  the  Spiiit  is  repre- 
sented by  pouring  out,  shedding  forth,  sprinkhng,  wash- 
ing or  baptizing;  and  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  is  com- 
pared to  the  descent  of  rain  and  dew,  it  is  thought  to 
be  improper  to  apply  this  metaphorical  language  to 
the  Spirit,  if  he  be  one  of  the  Trinity. 

The  propriety  of  this  figurative  language,  when 
applied  to  the  Spirit,  arises  from  the  nature,  the  ope- 
rations, and  the  eifects  of  the  Spirit.  Pouring  out, 
sprinkling,  washing,  &c.  are  literally  applied  to  water. 
They  are  figuratively  applied  to  the  operations  of  the 
Spirit,  because  the  Spirit  is,  in  his  nature,  like  water, 
pure.  In  his  effects  he  is,  like  water,  purifying.  Like 
water  he  invigorates  and  fructifies.  Like  the  rain 
and  dew  he  is  gentle  in  his  operation.  When  there 
is  such  a  striking  similarity  between  the  Spirit  and 
water,  it  is  proper  to  take  those  phrases,  which  are 
literally  applied  to  water  and  apply  them  figuratively 
to  the  Spirit.  Such  pertinent  figurative  allusions  do 
not  militate  against  the  divinity  of  the  Spirit.  If  the 
Holy  Spirit  be  but  an  emanation  of  divine  fulness,  it 
would  be  as  uncouth  to  apply  the  phrase,  pour  out, 
to  such  an  emanation  as  to  apply  it  to  ihe  operations 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  difficulty  arises  from  con- 
founding figurative,  with  plain  language. 

5.  God's  giving  his  Spirit  without  measure  to  Christ 
is  thought  to  militate  against  the  divine  nature  of  the 
Spirit.  The  man  Christ  Jesus  received  extraordinary 
communications  of  the  Spirit.  He  received  greater 
aid  from  him  than  the  prophets  or  apostles  received. 
Because  he  received  such  copious  effusions  of  the 
Spirit,  it  is  said  the  Spirit  was  given  to  him  not  by 
measure;  i.  e.  abundantly.  It  argues  no  more  against 
the  divinity  of  the  Spirit  that  he  was  given  to  Christ 


316  ON    THE    DISTINCTION    AND    DIVINITY 

without  measure,  than  that  he  was  given  to  the 
prophets  and  apostles  by  measure.  By  measure  and 
without  measure  denote  the  different  degrees  of  the 
gilts  or  aid  of"  the  Spirit. 

6.  Because  the  original  word  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment,  translated  Spirit,  and  the  articles  and  pronouns, 
agreeing  with  it  or  referring  to  it,  are  of  neuter  gender, 
it  is  inferred  that  the  Spirit  is  not  of  divine  nature. 

The  Hebrew  word  for  Spirit  is  of  masculine  termin- 
ation. But  not  to  insist  on  this,  the  Greek  word  for 
Spirit  in  this  text,  "God  is  a  Spirit;"  is  of  neuter  gen- 
der. But  the  use  of  this  gender  in  this  passage  does 
not  prove  that  God  is  a  mere  thing,  and  not  a  divine 
Being.  The  Greek  word  for  the  spirit  of  man,  for 
holy  and  for  fallen  spirits  is  of  neuter  gender.  But 
this  carries  no  evidence  that  the  spirit  of  man  is  not 
human,  or  that  the  spirit  of  angels  is  not  angelic.  The 
Greek  words  for  babe,  and  for  children,  whether  they 
be  youth  or  the  children  of  God,  are  of  neuter  gender. 
But  this  use  of  this  gender  does  not  prove  that  they 
do  not  belong  to  the  human  family,  or  that  they  are 
not  of  human  nature.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  called  the 
Comforter.  The  original  word,  translated  Comforter, 
and  the  articles  and  pronouns  agreeing  with  it,  or 
referring  to  it,  are  of  masculine  gender.  When  Christ 
calls  him  another  Coiiiforter,  he  ranks  him  equal  with 
himself;  and  at  the  same  time  points  out  his  distinction 
and  divinity. 

The  Greek  language  was  formed  long  before  the 
Gospels  and  Epistles  were  committed  to  writing. 
The  Greek  word  for  spirit  was  of  neuter  gender. 
The  Inspired  writers  were  not  commissioned  to  make 
innovations  in  language.  They  took  the  word  as  it 
was,  and  applied  it.  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  probable 
that  they  did  not  suspect  it  would  mislead  the  human 
mind  In  succeeding  ages,  any  more  than  when  it  was 
applied  to  man  or  angel. 

7.  Much  Is  said  in  the  scriptures  of  the  mutual 
love  between  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  the  dispo- 


OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  3l7 

sition  of  each  to  honor  the  other.  It  is  suggested  that 
such  reciprocal  love  between  the  Spirit  and  the 
Father,  and  between  the  Spirit  and  the  Son,  is  not 
mentioned  in  the  scriptures.  This  forms  another  ob- 
jection to  the  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  reason,  for  which  the  love  between  the  Father 
and  Son  is  so  irequently  and  fully  expressed  in  the 
Bible,  probably  is  the  near  relationship,  which  sub- 
sists between  them;  the  covenant,  which  was  formed 
and  ratified  by  them  and  the  suiFerings  and  humiliation 
of  the  Son  to  support  the  authority  of  God.  If  the 
love  between  the  Spirit,  and  the  Father,  and  Son,  be 
not  so  fully  expressed  in  the  Bible,  the  love  is  natu- 
rally inferred  from  the  language  of  scripture.  The 
Spirit  harmonizes  with  them  in  the  covenant  of  re- 
demption. He  co-operates  with  them  in  the  work  of 
salvation.  In  his  office  he  is  subordinate  to  them  and 
submissive  to  their  commands.  This  harmony  and 
concurrence  between  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit 
suppose  that  reciprocal  affection  subsists  between 
them.  At  the  baptism  of  Christ  the  Holy  Spirit 
descended,  rested  upon  him  and  performed  that  act 
of  consecration,  which  the  application  of  water  repre- 
sented. His  continuance  with  Christ  indicated  the 
union  and  affection,  which  subsisted  between  them. 

8.  Much  is  said  in  the  scriptures  of  the  love  of 
the  Father  towards  mankind,  and  also  of  the  love  of 
the  Son.  It  is  suggested  that  there  is  nothing  said  of 
the  love  of  the  Holy  Spirit  toward  the  human  race. 
On  this  ground  it  is  objected  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
not  of  divine  nature. 

Much  is  said  in  the  sacred  scriptures  which  implies 
the  love  of  the  Holy  Spirit  toward  mankind.  His 
works  express  his  love.  He  strives  with  sinners  for 
the  benevolent  purpose  of  convincing  them  of  their 
sin  and  of  their  danger.  He  does  not  relinquish  this 
gracious  work  till  he  has  been  long  and  obstinately 
resisted.  He  changes  the  human  heart.  He  carries 
on  the  work  of  sanctification  till  the  day  of  the  Lord 


318  ON    THE    DISTINCTION    AND    DIVINITY 

Jesus.  He  qualifies  his  subjects  foi-  the  reception  of 
the  benefits  ol"  Christ's  righteousness.  To  quahfy 
people  to  receive  the  benefits  of  Ciirist's  sacrifice  is  a 
work  no  less  benevolent  and  gracious  than  the  oiFering 
of  the  sacrifice  itself. 

The  Holy  SjMrit  expi'esses  an  earnest  desire  that 
sinners  should  reform  and  be  saved.  "The  Holy 
Ghost  saith,  to  day  if  ye  will  hear  his  voice,  harden 
not  your  hearts."  God  by  his  apostle  commanded 
saying,  "Grieve  not  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God."  This 
command  implies  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  grieved  on 
account  of  the  hardness  of  the  human  heart.  The 
scriptures  attribute  to  the  divine  Being,  human  shape, 
human  organs,  and  human  passions.  This  mode  ot 
expression  is  adopted  not  to  convey  the  idea  that  God 
possesses  these  human  properties,  but  to  represent 
his  actions  as  if  he  were  influenced  by  human  sensa- 
tions. When  the  Holy  Spirit  is  brought  to  view 
grieving  for  the  sinful,  unhappy  state  of  man,  he  ap- 
pears in  the  exercise  of  the  tenderest  love,  and  desir- 
ous to  promote  the  salvation  of  man.  He  is  called 
the  Comforter.  He  administers  consolation  to  con- 
verted sinners.  He  gives  them  peace  and  quietude 
of  mind  and  hope  of  future  blessedness.  In  this  view 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  he  a[)pear*s  not  only  in  the  exercise 
of  love  to  the  human  race,  but  he  appears  in  a  distinct 
and  official  capacity. 

9.  We  are  requii-ed  to  love  the  Father  and  the 
Son;  but  as  we  ar^e  not  commanded  expressly  and 
distinctly  to  love  the  Spirit,  it  is  inferred  that  he  Is 
not  of  divine  nature. 

Where  is  it  expressly  commanded  in  the  Bible  to 
love  the  Father  distinctly;  or  to  love  the  Son  distinctly.'^ 
The  divine  command  is,  thou  shalt  love  the  Loi'd  thy 
God  with  all  thy  heart.  The  command  has  no  respect 
to  any  distinction  in  the  divine  nature;  but  it  applies 
to  all  that  belongs  to  it.  When  we  are  commanded 
to  love  God,   we   are  required  to  love  all,  which  is 


OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  319 

embraced  in  the  term  God;  and  this  general  name 
usually  embraces  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit. 

10.  It  is  objected  to  the  Spirit's  divinity,  that  there 
is  no  express  command  to  render  worship  to  him. 

When  the  Spirit  is  united  with  the  Father  and  Son 
in  the  ordinance  oi'  baptism,  tiie  same  honor  is  given 
to  him  as  to  them.  When  it  is  considered  that 
speaking  against  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  greatest  of 
sins,  that  it  is  unpardonable,  it  is  astonishing  that  any 
should  view  him  standing  in  a  disrespectful  situation; 
that  any  should  view  him  not  entitled  to  divine  honors, 
nor  claiming  the  prerogatives  of  divinity.  When  God 
is  worshipped,  the  Spirit,  if  he  belong  to  God,  is  also 
worshipped. 

The  Holy  Spirit  is  represented  by  many  passages 
of  scripture  to  possess  divine  properties  and  to  per- 
form divine  works  Sometimes  he  is  represented  in 
a  passive  form.  It  is  then  he  acts  in  subordination  to 
ihe  Father  and  the  Son.  It  is  not  a  fair  construction 
of  the  scriptures  to  turn  plain  declarations  from  their 
most  natural  meaning  into  a  figurative  signification  for 
the  purpose  of  strengthening  a  particular  class  of 
texts,  or  for  the  purpose  of  suj)porting  a  favorite 
theory. 

In  the  work  of  salvation  there  appear  to  be  three 
offices,  three  kinds  of  works,  and  three  characters. 
One  proposes,  another  complies.  One  pays  the  ran- 
som, another  accepts;  and  the  third  prepares  subjects 
to  receive  its  benefits.  All  this  is  done  with  perfect 
harmony;  and  each  is  entitled  to  equal  love  and  vene- 
ratidn. 

It  has  been  asserted  by  some  that  no  name,  attri- 
bute, nor  work  is  attributed  exclusively  to  the  Holy 
Spirit.  (See  Purvcs^  pp.  [}.  15.)  From  this  it  is  infer- 
red that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  God  the  Father,  or  that  it 
is  his  energy,  influence,  or  operation.  It  does  not  ap- 
pear to  be  certain  that  this  position  is  true.  He  is 
called  the  Holy  Spirit;  the  Spirit  of  truth.  The  Father 
is  called  holy.     God  is  called  a  Spirit;  and  he  is  called 


320  ON    THE    DISTINCTION     AND    DIVINITY 

the  true  God.  But  he  Is  not  called  in  scripture  the 
Holy  Spirit;  nor  the  Spirit  of  truth.  Holj  Spirit  ap- 
pears tp  be  as  proper  and  as  discriminating  a  name  as 
the  name  Jesus  Christ.  Some  things  are  predicated  of  1 
the  Holj  Spirit,  which  are  not  predicated  of  the 
Father.  "The  Holy  Ghost  descended  in  a  bodily 
shape,  like  a  dove  upon  him,"  (i.  e.  Christ)  Luke  3:22. 
It  appears  to  be  no  more  incredible  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  should  assume  a  certain  similitude,  than  that 
the  Son  of  God  should  do  the  same  before  his  incarna- 
tion. It  is  believed  that  the  Father  never  has  mani- 
fested himself  by  any  likeness.  "No  man  hath  seen 
God  at  any  time,"  John  1:18.  Christ,  speaking  of 
the  Father,  says,  "Ye  have  neither  heard  his  voice 
at  any  time,  nor  seen  his  shape,''"'  John  5:37.  The 
Holy  Spirit  is  called  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  "God  hath 
sent  forth  the  Spirit  of  his  Son  into  your  hearts,"  Gal. 
4:6.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  called. the  Spirit  of  Christ, 
either  because  he  rested  upon  him  in  his  human  ne.- 
ture,  or  because  he  was  sent  by  him  into  the  world. 
But  the  Father  is  not  called  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  It 
is  through  the  Spirit,  Jews  and  Gentiles  have  access 
to  the  Father.  "We  both  have  an  access  bij  one 
Spirit  unto  the  Father,"  Ephes.  2:18.  It  was  not  by 
the  Father  they  had  access  to  the  Father.  Nor  is 
it  probable  that  it  was  by  the  energy  of  the  Father, 
they  had  access  to  him. 

The  conception  of  Mary  is  attributed  to  the  Holy 
Spirit.  "She  was  found  with  child  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
That,  which  is  conceived  in  her  is  of  the  Holy  Ghost," 
Matt.  1:18,20.  "The  Holy  Ghost  shall  come  upon 
thee,  and  the  power  of  the  Highest  shall  overshadow 
thee,  therefore  also,  that  holy  thing,  that  shall  be  born 
of  thee,  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God,"  Luke  1:35. 
In  the  two  first  of  these  passages,  Mary's  concep- 
tion of  the  body  of  Jesus  is  attributed  to  the  Holy 
Ghost.  In  the'latter  passage,  in  which  the  manner  of 
her  conception  is  described,  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the 
power  of    the    Highest  are   both   brought  to  view. 


OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  321 

If  the  power  of  the  Highest  is  any  thing  different 
from  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  imphes  the  joint  operation  of 
the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit.  It  is  believed  that 
no  divine  work  is  performed, exclusively  by  the  Father, 
or  the  Son,  or  the  Holy  Spirit.  But  the  influence  in 
the  conception  of  Mary  was  so  peculiarly  the  Holy 
Spirit's,  that  the  work  is  attributed  to  him. 

Jesus  Christ  has  authority  to  send  the  Holy  Spirit 
into  the  world.  "But  when  the  Comforter  is  come, 
whom  I  will  send  unto  you  from  the  Father,  evfen  the 
Spirit  of  truth,  which  proceedeth  from  the  Father,  he 
shall  testify  of  me,"  John  15:26.  "If  I  go  not  away, 
the  Comforter  will  not  come  unto  you;  but  if  I  depart 
I  will  send  him  unto  you.  And  when  he  is  come,  he 
Avill  reprove  the  world  of  sin,  and  of  righteousness, 
and  of  judgment.  Whatsoever  he  shall  hear,  that 
shall  he  speak,  and  he  will  shew  you  things  to  come. 
He  shall  glorify  me;  for  he  shall  receive  of  mine;  and 
shall  shew  it  unto  you.  All  things  that  the  Father 
hath  are  mine;  therefore  said  I,  he  shall  take  of  mine, 
and  shall  shew  it  unto  you,"  John  16:7,8,13,14,15. 
Whoever,  or  whatever  the  Comforter,  the  Spirit  of 
truth  is,  he  or  it,  is  evidently  subordinate  to  Jesus 
Christ.  What  he  hears  he  speaks.  He  is  sent  into 
the  world.  He  receives  of  Christ.  These  passages 
as  decisively  express  his  subordination  to  the  Son,  as 
any  passages  in  the  scriptures  express  the  Son's  sub- 
ordination to  the  Father.  It  will  not  be  maintained 
that  the  Comforter,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  is  God  the 
Father.  Suppose  then  that  it  is  his  energy,  influence, 
or  operation.  Christ  has  authority  over  it.  He  sends 
it  into  the  world.  Whatever  this  influence  shews 
unto  the  world,  it  receives  of  Christ.  It  is  an  extra- 
ordinary economy  indeed  if  the  Son  is  subordinate  to 
the  Father,  and  at  the  same  time  has  authority  over 
his  energy,  influence,  or  operation.  To  say  the  least, 
it  is  as  mysterious  as  the  doctrine  of  the  distinction 
and  divinity  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

In  the   passages,  which   have  been  quoted,  and  in 
many  others,  the  Holy  Spirit  appears  to  possess  all 
41 


322  ON    THE    DISTINCTION    AND    DIVINITY 

the  qualities  of  divinity.  But  we  are  told  that  the 
influences  of  the  Father  are  personified,  and  are  called 
the  Holy  Spirit.  It  appears  evident  that  we  are  some- 
times to  understand  the  name  Holy  Spirit,  to  import 
only  his  influences  or  communications.  The  figure, 
personification,  is  often  used  in  the  sacred  scriptures. 
But  it  is  hardly  credible,  that  Christ  in  his  discourse 
with  his  disciples  respecting  the  great  and  important 
communication,  which  he  would  make  to  them  after 
he  had  left  the  world,  should  adopt  such  figurative 
language.  In  the  simple  narration  of  events,  which 
were  to  take  place,  vve  should  not  naturally  expect  a 
train  of  personifications  connected  with  plain  language. 
We  should  hardly  expect  that  the'  form  of  baptism 
would  be  made  up  of  words  partly  of  natural  and 
partly  of  figurative  meaning.  To  baptize  persons  in 
the  name  of  the  Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  influ- 
ences of  the  Father,  appears  to  be  a  striking  incon- 
gruity. There  appears  to  be  just  as  much  ground 
for  asserting  that  the  two  first  names  in  the  form  of 
baptism  are  figurative,  as  that  the  last  is  so. 

If  all  the  names,  attributes,  and  works,  which  are 
attributed  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  are  also  attributed  to 
the  Father,  it  does  not  appear  to  follow  that  he  is  the 
Father,  or  his  influences.  It  is  believed  there  is  such 
a  union  of  nature,  and  such  a  concurrence  of  opera- 
tion between  the  Father  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  that 
what  is  attributed  to  one  may  be  attributed  to  the 
other.  Besides,  he  appears  to  be  subordinate  to  the 
Father  and  the  Son.  If,  in  the  performance  of  the 
works  peculiar  to  his  office,  he  is  commissioned  or 
sent  by  them,  it  is  agreeable  to  the  common  use  of 
language,  and  to  the  general  apprehensions  of  people 
to  attribute  the  same  work  to  either.  For  example;  the 
chief  magistrate  of  a  nation  sends  an  ambassador  to  a 
foreign  court.  The  latter  negotiates  and  adjusts  some 
important  matters.  The  former  approves  what  he 
has  done.  The  negotiation  is  attributed  indiscrimin- 
ately to  each. 


OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 


323 


Some  passages  in  the  sacred  scriptures,  which  con- 
tain tlie  name  of  the  Spirit,  appear  to  be  difficult   to 
be  explained,  unless  we  admit  that  he  is,  in  some  sense, 
distinct   from   the    Father.       "Through     him,   (i.   e. 
Christ)  we  both  have  an  access  by  one  Spirit  unto  the 
Father,'"  Ephes.  2:18.     It  will  not  be  maintained  that 
Spirit,  in  this  text,  signifies  the  Father.     Nor  does  it 
appear  evident  that  this  one   Spirit  signifies  the  influ- 
ences of  the  Father.     It  appears  to  be  a  very  unnat- 
ural construction  to  say,  we  both  have  an  access  to  the 
Father,  by   the  one   influence    of  the  Father.     It  ap- 
pears  to  be   unnatural  to  suppose  that  the  Father  is 
inaccessible   excepting  by   his  own   influences.     The 
communication  of  his  influences  would  imply  that  he 
was  accessible.     Admit  the  distinct  operations  of  the 
Spirit,  and  the  construction  appears  to  be  natural  and 
easy.     Through  Christ  we  both   have  access  by  the 
influences  of  the  Spirit  unto  the  Father. 
'    "The  Spirit  itself  maketh  intercession  for  us,  with 
groanings,   which  cannot    be  uttered.     And   he    that 
searcheth  the  hearts  knoweth   what  is   the  mind    of 
the  Spirit,   because   he    maketh   intercession  for   the 
saints  according  to  the  will   of  God,"  Rom.    8:26,27. 
In  these  passages  the  Holy  Spirit  is  represented  inter- 
ceding, groaning  and  having  a  mind;  and  he  intercedes 
according  to   the  will  of  God.     This  appears    to  im- 
ply distinct  operation.     It  would  be  a  bold  figure  to 
represent  the  influences  of  the  Father,  having  a  mind 
and  making  intercession  to  him  according  to   his  will. 
It  would  be  a  very  unnatural  construction  to  say  that 
the  Father,  who  searcheth  the  hearts,  knoweth   the 
mind  of  his  own  operations;  and  knoweth  them  on  this 
ground,    because   their   intercessions  are  agreeable  to 
his  will.      We  believe  that  the  apostle  did   not  thus 
darken  his  meaning  by  an  unnatural   use  of  words. 

In  view  of  the  divinity  of  the  Father,  Son,  and 
Holy  Spirit,  it  is  inquired,  "Must  not  three  divine 
Bein<rs  be  three  Gods? — Does  reason  teach  or  admit 
the    existence  of    three  Gods,  equal,    and  mnnite  in 


324  ON    THE    DISTINCTION    AND    DIVINITY 

divine  attributes? — Does  reason  teach  or  admit  the 
existence  of  three  beings,  equal  and  infinite  in  divine 
attributes? — Is  it  not  ditiicult  to  conceive  of,  and  con- 
template three  divine  persons  otherwise  than  so  many 
separate  and  distinct  beings? — Must  not  this  one  God 
then  possess  three  sets  of  all  divine  attributes? — If  ail 
fulness  dwelt  in  Christ  by  the  will  or  pleasure  of  the 
Father,  must  not  this  fulness  have  been  a  derived 
fulness? — The  fact  however  is,  that  the  fulness^  which 
dwells  in  Christ  is  the  fulness  of  the  Father.''''  (See 
Serious  Inquirer,  pp.  6,7,30,43,49.) 

It  is  not  denied  that  some  Trinitarian  writers  have 
given  too  much  occasion  for  these  inquiries.  It  is  not 
denied  that  difficulty  attends  the  contemplation  of  the 
divinity  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit.  Whether 
we  contemplate  the  divine  nature  existing  in  plurality, 
or  in  unity,  there  is  difficulty.  It  is  not  surprising  that 
an  infinite  subject  should  be  difficult  for  finite  minds. 
It  is  unfortunate  that  the  subject  should  be  made  to 
appear  more  difficult  by  ill  chosen  words  and  phrases. 
In  treating  of  the  divine  Nature,  it  is  not  necessary 
to  represent  it  consisting  of  three  distinct  beings,  agents, 
or  persons.  Nor  is  it  necessary  to  represent  the  Fa- 
ther, the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  distinct  persons, 
agents,  or  beings.  It  is  not  necessary  to  attempt  to 
explain  the  mode  of  divine  subsistence.  It  is  sufficient 
to  shew  from  scripture  that  the  Father,  the  Son,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit  are  divine.  When  it  is  inquired,  how 
can  these  things  be?  we  do  not  attempt  to  answer  the 
question.  But  if  we  find  evidence  from  scripture  that 
these  things  are  so,  it  is  sufficient  to  make  them 
articles  of  belief? 

When  it  is  said  that  the  Father  is  God,  the  Son  is 
God,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  God,  it  is  not  to  be  understood 
that  each  is  God,  or  possesses  all  divine  attributes 
distinctly  and  separately  from  the  other  two.  If  this 
were  the  case,  there  would  be  three  Gods.  But  it  is 
to  be  understood  that  there  is  such  a  ground  of  dis- 
tinction between  them,  that  some  works  are  peculiarly 


OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  325 

attributed  to  the  Father,  some  to  the  Son,  and  others 
to  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  at  the  same  time  there  is  such 
a  ground  of  union  between  them,  that  some  works 
are  attributed  indiscriminately  to  each.  It  is  rephed, 
this  distinction  and  this  union  in  divine  nature  is  unin- 
telligible. Be  it  so.  Let  us  bring  under  review  a 
subject,  with  which  we  are  better  acquainted;  and 
about  which  there  is  less  dispute.  Let  us  take  human 
nature.  Let  us  take  man.  He  exists  in  duality.  He 
consists  of  matter  and  spirit;  or  of  body  and  soul. 
Some  actions  are  attributed  to  one  and  some  to  the 
other;  and  some  are  attributed  to  both  without  dis- 
crimination. A  man  walks.  The  act  is  attributed 
specially  to  his  body.  But  there  is  a  concurrent  ac- 
tion of  his  spirit,  or  mind.  A  man  reflects,  or  calcu- 
lates. The  act  is  attributed  specially  to  his  mind. 
But  there  is  no  doubt  that  his  mental  exercises  are 
affected,  more  or  less,  by  his  material  part.  We 
speak  of  a  wise  man,  and  of  a  strong  man.  In  the 
one  case  we  speak  peculiarly  of  his  corporeal  nature; 
in  the  other,  of  his  spiritual  nature;  and  in  both  cases 
we  include,  by  the  word  man,  both  natures.  Could 
the  body,  in  its  individual  capacity,  speak,  it  might 
truly  say,  of  myself  I  can  do  nothing.  It  is  the  mind, 
which  dwelleth  in  me,  that  doeth  the  works.  Does 
it  follow  from  this  that  the  body  was  not  human,  or 
did  not  belong  to  the  man.'*  Does  it  follow  that  the 
matter  and  spirit,  which  compose  human  nature,  make 
two  men?  Is  it  difficult  to  conceive  of,  and  contem- 
plate on  these  two  natures,  body  and  soul,  otherwise 
than  so  many  distinct  beings  or  men?  Must  this  one  man 
possess  two  sets  of  all  human  qualities?  We  allow  that 
the  distinction  between,  and  the  union  of,  soul  and 
body  are  unintelligible.  But  upon  evidence  it  is  ad- 
mitted as  matter  of  fact.  We  affirm  and  deny  the 
same  thing  of  human  nature.  We  say,  man  is  mortal; 
and  we  say,  man  is  immortal;  we  say  he  is  material, 
and  we  say,  he  is  spiritual;  and  we  are  believed. 
At   one  time   Christ  said,    "The  Father  is  greater 


326  ON    THE    DISTINCTION    AND    DlTINIllY 

than  I."  At  another  time  he  claimed  a  relationship  to 
him,  by  which  he  was  understood  to  make  himself 
God,  or  equal  with  God;  and  the  apostle  Paul  states 
that  he  "thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal  with 
God." 

It  is  not  supposed  that  divine  Nature  can  be  ade- 
quately explained,  or  illustrated  by  arguments  drawn 
from  human  nature.  But  the  foregoing  observations 
are  made  to  shew  that  if  man  exists  in  duality^  there 
appears  to  be  no  impossibility  that  God  should  exist 
in  Trinity;  that  if  this  duality  in  human  nature  does 
not  involve  two  sets  of  all  human  properties,  a  Trinity 
in  divine  nature  does  not  necessarily  involve  "three 
sets  of  all  divine  attributes;"  that  if  the  body  and 
soul  of  man  do  not  constitute  him  two  distinct  and 
separate  beings,  there  appears  to  be  no  necessity  of 
resolving  the  divine  Nature,  designated  by  the  names 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit,  into  three  distinct  and 
separate  beings.  From  the  mode  of  existence  of  hu- 
man nature  we  do  not  infer  what  is  the  mode  of  divine 
existence.  But  when  we  admit  the  peculiar  manner 
of  human  existence  with  all  its  difficulties,  there  ap- 
pears to  be  no  necessity  of  denying  a  peculiar  manner 
of  divine  existence,  when  similar,  and  perhaps  to  our 
apprehension,  not  greater  difficulties  attend  it. 

It  does  not  appear  to  be  necessary  to  contend 
whether  the  two  natures  of  Jesus  Christ  constitute 
one  person,  or  not.  The  dispute  is  merely  about  names. 
When  the  name  person  is  applied  to  Christ  in  both 
natures,  it  signifies  something  different  from  what  It 
^-signifies  when  applied  to  any  other  being.  Of  course, 
objections  may  be  raised  against  this  complex  person- 
ality, (as  it  is  called)  which  would  not  lie  either  against 
his  divinity  or  humanity.  If  it  be  proved  by  scrip- 
ture that  two  natures  are  united  in  Jesus  Christ,  it  is 
unnecessary  to  contend  for  the  word  person. 

In  examining  the  subject  of  divine  Nature  it  is  found 
that  difficulty  is  not  peculiar  to  the  Trinitarian  hypo- 
thesis.   Those,  who  vindicate  the  simple  unity  of  Ood, 


OF    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT.  327 

believe  his  omnipresence.  They  believe  he  is  pres- 
ent in  different  parts  of  the  world  and  in  heaven  at 
the  same  time.  They  believe  he  exercises  his  attri- 
butes in  different  parts  of  creation  at  one  and  the  same 
time;  and  that  he  is  conscious  of  all  his  operations. 
He  exercises  divine  power,  wisdom  and  goodness  on 
earth.  At  the  same  time  he  exercises  divine  power, 
wisdom  and  goodness  in  heaven.  At  the  same  time  he 
is  conscious  of  his  operations  in  both  places.  We  ask 
in  our  turn,  must  there  not  be  as  many  conscious- 
nesses, "as  many  sets  of  all  divine  attributes,"  as  many 
distinct  beings,  or  agents,  as  there  are  places,  in  which 
God  is,  and  acts.  God  is  here;  and  God  is  there.  If 
he  be  wholly  here,  how  can  he  be  there?  If  he  be 
partly  here,  and  partly  there,  a  part  is  less  than  the 
whole;  and  of  course,  must  not  something  less  than 
God  be  here;  and  something  less  than  God  be  there; 
and  must  not  the  supposition  imply  a  division  of  the 
divine  naturcf^  Let  it  be  shewn  how  these  difficulties 
may  be  removed,  and  it  will  help  Trinitarians  to  re- 
move the  difficulties,  which  are  alleged  against  their 
system. 

"It  pleased  the  Father  that  in  him  should  all  ful- 
ness dwell,"  Col.  1:19.  "In  him  dwelleth  all  the  ful- 
ness of  the  Godhead  bodily,"  Col.  2:9.  "But  if  all 
fulness  dwelt  in  Christ  by  the  will  or  pleasure  of  the 
Father,"  it  is  inquired,  "must  not  this  fulness  have  been 
a  derived  fulnessV  Does  it  not  seem  to  imply  that  for  all 
the  attributes  or  excellences,  which  Christ  possessed, 
he  was  dependent  on  his  Father? — The  fact  however 
is,  that  the  fulness,  which  dwells  in  Christ,  is  the  ful- 
ness of  the  Father.  But  what  is  this  fulness,  aside 
from  those  "treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge"  im- 
parted to  Christ  by  the  Father  for  the  benefit  of  the 
church.'* — That  the  wisdom  and  power  of  the  Father 
resided  in  him.     (See  Serious  Inquirer^  pp.  30,43.) 

If  the  fulness  of  the  Father,  i.  e.  his  wisdom,  knowl- 
edge and  power,  was  derived  from  him  and  dwelt  in 
Christ,  and  he  "possessed"  them,  ii  seems  that,  when 


328  ON    THE    DiyiNTTY    OP    THE    HOLY    SPIRIT. 

Christ  possessed  this  fulness,  the  Father  did  not  jpoS" 
sess  it,  unless  two  distinct  beings  could  possess  the  same 
numerical  properties.  As  this  is  impossible,  it  ap- 
pears that,  if  Christ  possessed  the  fulness^  of  the 
Father,  the  Father  suffered  a  privation  of  his  fulness; 
and  that  he  retained  nothing  but  his  name.  But  if 
this  be  not  the  consequence,  we  inquire,  would  not 
the  fulness  of  the  Father,  added  to  the  man  Christ 
Jesus,  be  greater  than  the  Father  himself.^  Is  it  possi- 
ble that  divine  attributes  can  be  transferred.-^  Is  it  pos- 
sible that  a  finite  being  can  be  the  recipient  and  pos- 
sessor of  infinite  qualities?  If  the  fulness  of  the  Father 
dwelt  in  Christ,  in  no  other  sense  than  it  dwells  in 
heaven,  or  on  earth,  or  in  christians,  might  not  di- 
vine works  be  attributed,  with  as  much  propriety  to 
them,  as  to  him?  And  how  could  Christ  express  that 
reciprocal  union,  which  subsisted  between  him  and  the 
Father,  "/  am  in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me." 
If  the  Father  retained  all  his  attributes  after  he  had 
imparted  \m  fulness  to  Christ,  would  there  not  be  an 
increase  of  divinity?  Would  there  not  be  two  sets  of 
divine  attributes?  But  where  will  our  inquiries  lead 
us?  The  fact  is,  it  is  easier  to  raise  difficulties,  than  to 
remove  them.  We  need  to  be  cautious,  lest  we  con- 
demn that  in  others,  which  we  approve  in   ourselves. 


THE  CONNEXION  OF  DIVINE  PLURALITY 
WITH  OTHER  DOCTRINES  OF  THE  SACRED 
SCRIPTURES. 


The  different  parts  of  Christianity  perfectly  corres- 
pond with  each  other.  Its  doctrines  compose  one 
great  chain,  whose  hnks  are  intimately  connected.  If 
one  doctrine  be  weakened,  the  whole  system  is  affect- 
ed. If  one  doctrine  be  expunged,  the  connexion  is 
dissolved.  It  is  not  the  province  of  human  imperfec- 
tion to  define  the  utmost  extent  of  error,  which  will 
not  make  the  Christian  religion  another  gospel.  But 
it  is  evident  that  every  error  in  religion  is  of  evil  ten- 
dency; and  an  incorrect  opinion  of  one  doctrine  natu- 
rally leads  to  an  incorrect  opinion  of  others.  Our 
holy  religion  is  a  well  connected  and  proportioned 
system.  Errors  also  have  their  connexion  and  pro- 
portion; and  it  is  not  seldom  they  are  marshalled  into 
a  systematic  form.  If  an  incorrect  sentiment  of  one 
doctrine  of  the  Gospel  be  formed,  this  sentiment  will 
not  coalesce  with  other  doctrines,  till  they  are  modi- 
fied, perverted,  diluted  and  despoiled  of  their  true 
meaning.  It  is  unnatural  for  truth  to  unite  with  error; 
and  for  error  to  unite  with  truth.  There  is  no  fellow- 
ship; there  is  no  bond  of  union  between  them.  As 
far  as  error  is  incorporated  with  divine  truth,  so  far 
t  he  truth  suffers;  and  the  Christian  system  is  marred. 
Some  errors  are  more  pernicious  than  others.  While 
42 


330    CONNEXION    OF    DIVINE    PLURALITY    WITH    OTHER 

some  strike  at  the  foundation  and  subvert  the  whole 
fabric  of  Christianity,  others  only  tarnish  it. 

The  divine  plurality  appears  to  be  not  only  a  prom- 
inent, but  an  important  doctrine  of  the  scriptures. 
Every  manifestation  of  the  divine  Nature  appears 
interesting;  but  none  is  more  so,  than  that,  which  is 
made  in  the  work  of  redemption.  Here,  if  any 
where,  the  Trinity  is  disclosed;  and  a  belief  or  a 
denial  of  this  doctrine  is  intimately  connected  with  a 
belief,  or  denial  of  most  of  the  doctrines  of  the  gospel. 
The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  appears  to  give  an  excel- 
lence and  importance  to  other  doctrines  of  Christianity, 
which,  by  a  denial  of  it,  are  wholly  lost. 

In  the  covenant  of  redemption  there  are  contracting 
parties.  The  Father  promises  to  give  the  Son  the 
heathen  for  his  inheritance,  and  the  uttermost  parts 
of  the  earth  for  his  possession;  that  he  shall  see  of 
the  travail  of  his  soul  and  be  satisfied;  that  he  shall 
have  dominion  from  sea  to  sea,  and  from  the  river  to 
the  ends  of  the  earth.  This  was  promised  him  in 
view,  and  as  a  consequence  of,  his  taking  upon  him 
the  form  of  a  servant,  of  humbling  himself  even  to  the 
ignominy  and  tortures  of  the  cross.  In  view  of  this 
part  of  the  covenant  transaction,  and  of  what  he  had 
to  perform,  the  Son  replied,  "Lo,  I  come,  (in  the 
volume  of  the  book  it  is  written  of  me)  to  do  thy  will, 
O  God."  In  the  prosecution  of  the  work  of  redemp- 
tion the  Holy  Spirit  appears  engaged  in  renewing 
human  nature;  in  enlightening  and  comforting  believ- 
ers, and  sealing  them  to  the  day  of  redemption.  His 
office  and  work  afford  evidence  that  he  was  concerned 
in  the  covenant  of  redemption. 

If  there  be  a  plurality  In  the  divine  Nature;  if  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  constitute  this 
plurality,  they  are  competent  to  form  and  execute 
covenant  engagements  respecting  the  salvation  of  the 
human  race.  Each  is  adequate  to  his  own  peculiar 
work.  The  excellence  and  dignity  of  the  high  con- 
tracting parties  give  the  greatest  degree  of  importance 


DOCTRINES    OP    THE    SACREJD    SCRIPTURES.  331 

to  the  transaction.  The  ability  of  each  to  fulfil  his 
stipulated  part,  and  the  unity  of  design  subsisting 
between  them,  afford  ground  of  perfect  confidence 
that  the  covenant  engagements  will  be  performed. 
The  same  Being,  who,  in  plurality,  said,  "let  us  make 
man,"  was  equally  able  to  say,  let  us  redeem  man. 

But  if  there    be   no  ground  of  distinction  in   the 
divine  Nature;  if  the  Son  of  God  be  merely  a  created 
being;  if  the  Holy  Spirit   be   only  the  operations  of 
the  Father,  the  covenant  of  redemption  appears  to 
lose  its  peculiar  excellencies.     The  parties  concerned 
are  entirely  disproportionate.     There  is  no  comparison 
between  the  Creator  and  a  creature.     It   appears  to 
be  a  manifest  incongruity,  that  God  should  enter  into 
compact  with  a  created  being  respecting  any  matter, 
in  which  the  latter  was  not  personally  concerned.  To 
treat  with  him   by  an   interchange   of  correspondent 
obligations  seems  to  ir^ply  an  exaltation  of  the  creature 
to  an  equality  with  himself;  or  an  abasement  of  him- 
self to  a  level   with  the  creature.     In  forming  the 
covenant  of  redemption,  did  infinite  Wisdom  need  the 
assistance  of  any  created  intelligence?     In  carrying  it 
into  operation  did  the  Almighty  need  the   dependent 
power  of  any  created  being?     It  is  not  doubted  that 
the  Supreme   Being  employs  ministering  servants  as 
agents  in  the  administration  of  his  government.     But 
which  of  his  agents  stipulates   with  the  divine  Sove- 
reign, and  produces  claims  upon  him  correspondent  to 
his  own  obligations?     The  claims  of  the  Son  upon  the 
Father  to  fulfil  his  part  of  the   contract  are  not  less 
valid  and   important  than  the  claims  of  the  Father 
upon  the  Son.      What  makes  this  case  different  from 
all  other  cases  is  this,  what  the  Son  did  in  redemption 
he  did  not  for  himself,  but  for  others.     He  has,  there- 
fore, not  only  a  claim  upon  the  Father   arising  from 
promise,   but   he  has  a  meritorious  claim  upon  him  to 
fulfil  his  part  of  the  covenant.     What  created  being 
can,  after  he  has  discharged  his  own  personal   obliga- 
tions, produce  a  surplus  of  righteousness,  which  may 


332    CONNEXION    OF    DIVINE    PLURALITY    WITH    OTHER 

he  accounted  for  the  benefit  of  others;  and  then  pro- 
duce a  claim  upon  heaven  for  remuneration  for  extra 
services?  Were  this  the  case,  were  this  the  ground 
of  salvation,  then  a  created  being  would  be  the  end  of 
the  law  for  righteousness  to  every  one  that  believeth 
He  would  be  made  unto  us  w^isdom,  sanctificalion  and 
redemption. 

The  disparity  between  the  Creator  and  a  creature 
seems  to  preclude  the  possibility  of  their  being  con- 
tracting parties  respecting  the  redemption  of  man. 
The  disparity  is  infinitely  greater  than  that  existing 
between  the  highest  sovereign  on  earth  and  his  lowest 
subject.  If  the  Son  of  God  be  merely  a  created  being, 
lie  does  not  possess  one  quality  in  his  nature,  which 
renders  him  competent  to  contract  with  the  Father, 
or  to  fulfil  covenant  engagements  respecting  the  sal- 
vation of  man.  His  wisdom  would  not  be  sufficient  to 
devise  concerning  those  things,  which  the  angels 
desire  to  look  into.  His  own  power  would  not  be 
competent  to  the  performance  of  his  part  of  the  com- 
pact. Every  thing  pertaining  to  him  and  to  his  work 
would  be  limited;  and  he  would  be  entirely  incompe- 
tent to  be  a  party  in  the  covenant. 

If  the  Holy  Spirit  be  not  a  party  in  the  covenant; 
if  he  be  only  divine  operation  or  influence,  there 
appears  to  be  an  incongruity  and  deficiency  in  the 
scheme  of  redemption.  It  is  the  office  of  the  Father 
to  send  the  Son  to  fulfil  his  part  of  the  covenant;  to 
answer  his  requests;  to  accept  what  he  does;  and  ffive 
him,  as  a  recompense,  what  he  had  promised.  It  is 
part  of  the  office  of  the  Son  to  send  the  Holy  Spirit 
to  convince  and  convert  sinners;  to  comfort  believers 
and  seal  them  to  the  day  of  redemption.  If  the  Son 
be  sent  by  the  Father,  if  he  be  subordinate  to  him  in 
his  official  work,  it  is  incredible  that  he  should  have 
authority  over  the  Father  to  control  his  operations 
and  send  them  when  and  where  he  pleases.  This 
would  reverse  the  order  of  offices;  and  produce  con- 
fusion in  the  economy  of  redemption.     But  if  the  Son 


Doctrines  of  the  sacred  scriptures.         333 

and  Holy  Spirit  be  divine,  as  well  as  the  Father,  thev 
are  on  equality;  and  they  are  suitable  parties  to  enter 
into  reciprocal  compact.  They  are  adequate  to  the 
perlbrmance  of  their  respective  parts.  The  cove- 
nant of  redemption  is  an  instrument,  formed  and  con- 
firmed in  all  its  articles  by  Divinity;  and  carries 
evidence  with  itself  that  it  will  be  fulfilled. 

Let  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  be  next  viewed  in 
relation  to  the  atonement.  If  the  Son  of  God  be 
divine,  it  was  infinite  condescension  for  him  to  take 
upon  him  the  form  of  a  servant.  He  subjected  him- 
self to  the  lowest  degree  of  humiliation,  when  he 
veiled  his  divine  glories  with  humanity  in  its  lowest 
condition;  when  lie  sutfered  the  scoffs  and  reproaches 
of  his  enemies;  when  he  endured  all  the  ignominy, 
which  could  be  cast  upon  a  crucified  malefactor.  The 
whole  term  of  his  abode  on  earth  was  a  continued 
series  of  deep  humiliation.  The  union  of  divinity 
with  humanity  gave  the  latter  an  extraordinary  dig- 
nity and  excellence.  So  intimate  was  the  connexion 
of  divinity  and  humanity  that  the  second  man  is  called 
the  Lord  from  heaven;  and  the  blood  of  the  Son  of 
man  is  called  the  blood  of  God.  By  the  union  of  the 
Son  of  God  with  the  Son  of  man,  the  sufferings  of  the 
humanity  of  Christ  acquired  an  unspeakable  impor- 
tance; and  in  conjunction  with  the  abasement  of  the 
divine  Son,  they  constituted  a  sacrifice,  which  was  a 
propitiation  for  the  sins  of  the  world.  Look  at  the 
cross  and  behold  divinity  and  innocent  humanity 
engaged  in  making  an  expiation  for  sin;  the  one 
enduring  a  concealment  of  his  glories,  and  all  the 
ignominy,  which  his  enemies  could  cast  upon  him; 
and  the  other  suffering  the  tortures  of  the  ci'oss.  In 
this  view  the  atonement  appears  to  be  of  infinite 
importance. 

By  the  worth  of  the  sacrifice,  which  was  made, 
the  guilt  of  sin  may  be  accurately  estimated.  There 
was  no  suffering  needlessly  expended.  If  the  victim, 
which    was   olfcred   upon   the   cross    was    of   infinite 


334    CONNEXION    OF    DIVINE    PLURALITY    WITH    OTHER 

dignity  and    excellence,    it   follows    that    sin,    which 
required  such  a  sacrifice,  was  of  infinite  guilt. 

Admit  the  divinity  of  Christ  and  the  consequent 
value  of  the  atonement;  and  God's  law  appears  per- 
fectly honorable.  If  the  sacrifice  be  commensurate 
with  the  guilt  of  sin,  the  divine  law  suffers  no  diminu- 
tion of  its  requirements,  or  of  its  validity.  It  exhibits 
proof  that  it  requires  perfect  satisfaction  for  every 
violation,  or  that,  which  will  equally  preserve  its 
authority  and  efficacy.  It  exhibits  proof  that  not  one 
jot  or  tittle  of  its  requirerrents  is  abated;  and  that 
while  mercy  is  exercised,  justice  is  satisfied.  If  the 
sacrifice  for  sin  be  made  by  the  Son  of  God  in  con- 
junction with  the  Son  of  man,  the  divine  law  appears 
to  be  as  fully  honored  and  magnified,  and  God  ex- 
presses as  great  abhorrence  of  sin,  as  if  the  threatened 
penalty  were  inflicted  upon  transgressors. 

But  if  the  Son  of  God  be  merely  a  created  being, 
there  appears  to  be  less  condescension  on  the  part  of 
divinity.  There  appears  to  be  less  value  in  the 
atonement.  Sin  appears  with  less  malignity;  and  the 
divine  law  appears  with  great  abatement  of  its  require- 
ments. If  Jesus  Christ  was  merely  human,  it  was  no 
condescension  in  Deity  that  he  came  into  the  world, 
labored  and  suffered  as  he  did;  and  it  was  no  greater 
condescension  and  humiliation  in  himself  than  many 
others  have  endured.  Thousands  have  appeared  in 
the  form  of  servants;  and  have  innocently  suffered  the 
tortures  and  ignominy  of  execution  as  malefactors.  If 
the  Son  of  God  was  the  highest  of  all  created  intelli- 
gences, his  coming  into  the  world  in  the  form  of  a 
servant,  and  suffering  the  disgrace  and  tortures  of  the 
cross  would  be  no  humiliation  on  the  part  of  Deity; 
and  his  own  humiliation  appears  infinitely  less  than  if 
he  were  divine. 

If  the  Son  of  God  be  only  a  created  being,  whether 
human,  or  human  and  superangelic,  he  does  not 
appear  to  be  capable  of  making  a  propitiation  for  the 
sins  of  the  world.     It  is  hard   to  conceive  that  any 


»  DOCTRINES    OF    THE    SACRED    SCRIPTURES.  335 

creature,  however  exalted,  can  perform  more  than 
his  own  duty;  or  that  he  should  l>ave  a  surplus  of 
righteousness  to  appropriate  for  the  benefit  of  others. 
If  one  should  volunteer  his  services  for  the  assistance 
of  another,  he  would  be  either  under  obligation,  or 
not  under  obligation'to  do  it.  If  he  were  under  oblir 
gation  to  tender  the  kind  offices,  he  would  do  onlj 
what  was  his  own  duty.  If  he  were  not  under  obliga- 
tion to  offer  his  kindness,  he  would  not  do  his  own 
duty  while  he  communicated  assistance  to  others.  Of 
course,  there  would  be  an  interval,  in  which  he  was 
free  from  discharging  his  own  personal  obligations; 
and  could  perform  duty  in  behalf  of  others.  But  not 
to  insist  on  the  inconsistency  of  such  a  method;  the 
assistance,  which  one  created  being  can  bestow  upon 
another,  is  limited  in  its  very  nature.  Suppose  one 
man  dies  for  another,  I'he  sufferings  of  the  former 
are  only  equivalent  to  the  life  of  the  latter.  Suppose 
one  should  offer  his  life  for  the  preservation  of  the 
lives  of  several  of  his  equal  fellow  beings,  the  offering 
would  be  unequal  to  the  object  to  be  accomplished. 
If  he  should  offer  liis  life  to  save  one  soul  from  ever- 
lasting death,  the  sacrifice  would  be  entirely  inade- 
quate for  the  purpose.  Should  he  offer  his  life  for 
the  salvation  of  the  whole  human  race  from  endless 
destruction,  what  numbers  could  give  the  dispropor- 
tion between  the  sacrifice  and  the  object  to  be  ob- 
tained! A  sacrifice  made  by  any  created  being  bears 
no  comparison  m  its  value  with  the  sacrifice  made  by 
Divinity   in  conjunction  with  humanitv. 

If  the  atonement  be  of  limited  value  and  efficacy, 
sin  appears  to  be  of  finite  guilt.  There  is  a  just  pro- 
portion, an  exact  correspondence  between  the  virtue 
of  the  sacrifice  and  the  malignity  of  sin,  which  is 
expiated  by  it.  As  much  as  any  system  reduces  the 
excellence  of  the  victim  and  the  consequent  value  of 
his  sacrifice,  just  so  much  it  reduces  the  g«iilt  and  ill 
desert  of  sin.  If  a  finite  being  can  make  atonement 
for  sin,  it  follows  that  sin  is  but  a  finite  evil. 


336       CONNEXION    OF    DIVINE    PLURALITY    WITH    OTHER 

The  honor  and  force  of  the  divine  law  is  in  propor- 
tion to  the  guili  of  transgression.  A  transgression  of 
civil  law,  viewed  only  in  relation  to  this  law,  is  a  finite 
evil.  It  is  committed  by  a  finite  being  against  a  lim- 
ited authority;  and  the  transgressor  can  make  satis- 
faction or  expiation  for  his  crimes.  He  can  satisfy  the 
demands  of  the  law  which  he  has  violated.  The 
limitations  of  the  gu.lt  of  his  offences  denote  the  limit- 
ations of  tlie  law  he  had  transgressed,  and  of  the 
authority,  which  he  had  offended. 

If  transorression  of  the  divine  law  contain  but  finite 

o 

guilt,  the  law  violated,  and  the  Lawgiver  must,  of  course, 
have  those  limitations,  which  appear  to  be  inconsist- 
ent with  the  perfect  authority  of  Jehovah.  As  much 
as  the  evil  of  sin  is  diminished,  so  much  the  law  of 
God  is  shorn  of  its  divine  excellence,  and  becomes  like 
another  law.  If  sin  be  but  a  finite  evil,  the  divine 
law  cannot  justly  inflict,  or  threaten  an  infinite  pun- 
ishment. A  victim  of  limited  capacity  could  make  an 
atonement;  and  if^  atonement  were  not  made,  a  trans- 
gressor might  make  expiation  for  his  own  sins;  and 
then  claim  exemption  from  further  punishment. 
Deny  the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  the  covenant  of 
redemption  appears  less  important;  the  atonement  ap- 
pears to  lose  much,  if  not  all,  of  its  virtue;  sin  appears 
to  be  divested  of  much  of  its  criminality;  the  divine  law 
appears  to  be  weakened;  and  the  whole  method  of 
salvation  appears  to  suffer  a  great  diminution  of  its 
divine  excellences. 

The  doctrine  of  Christ's  divinity  proves  that  the 
love  of  God  for  the  human  race  was  very  great.  This 
is  argued  from  the  greatness  of  the  Father's  love  for 
the  Son.  The  Father  testified  of  him  in  the  most 
affectionate  manner:  "This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in 
whom  I  am  well  pleased."  "The  Father  loveth  the 
Son;  and  hath  given  all  things  into  his  hand."  But  not- 
withstanding the  intimate  union  subsisting  between  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  so  that  the  latter  is  said  to  be  in 
the  bosom  of  the  former;  notwithstanding  the  great- 
ness of  the   Father's  love  for   his  only   begotten  and 


DOCTRINES    OF    THE    SACRED    SCRIPTURES.  337 

dearly  beloved  Son,  yet  he  sent  hirn  into  the  world 
that  he  might  redeem  it.  He  spared  not  his  own  Son, 
but  delivered  him  up  for  us  all.  The  greatness  of 
God's  love  for  the  world  is  inferred  from  his  sending 
his  Son  into  the  world  to  make  a  propitiation  for  sin. 
If  his  Son  were  divine;  if  he  were  in  union  with  him 
in  all  his  counsels,  and  in  all  his  operations,  then  it 
was  a  great  thing,  a  great  expression  of  love  for  the 
human  race,  to  send  this  partner  of  his  throne  into 
the  world  in  the  form  of  a  servant;  to  expose  him  to 
the  greatest  indignity,  and  subject  him  to  the  deepest 
humiliation.  Such  sacrifice  on  the  part  of  Deity 
expresses,  in  the  strongest  manner,  his  love  for  fallen 
humanity.  The  scriptures  represent  the  love  of  God 
toward  the  human  race  to  be  very  great.  "God 
commendeth  his  love  toward  us,"  Rom.  5:8.  "Behold 
what  manner  of  love  the  Father  hath  bestowed  upon 
us,  that  we  should  be  called  the  sons  of  God,"  1  John 
3:1.  "Herein  is  love,  not  that  we  loved  God,  but  that 
he  loved  us,  and  sent  his  Son  to  be  the  propitiation  for 
our  sins,"  1  John  4: 10.  "Greater  love  hath  no  man 
than  this,  that  a  man  lay  down  his  life  for  his Jriends" 
John  15:13.  "For  when  we  were  yet  without  strength, 
in  due  time,  Christ  died  for  the  ungodly,''^  Rom.  5:6. 
If  the  Son  of  God  was  merely  human,  divine  love 
for  the  human  race  does  not  appear  extraordinarily 
great  in  offering  him  in  sacrifice  for  their  salvation. 
Any  sovereign,  who  had  a  sense  of  the  interest  of  his 
kingdom,  would,  if  occasion  required,  sacrifice  one  of 
his  subjects,  if  his  death  would  procure  the  preserva- 
tion and  highest  interest  of  the  rest.  By  this  act  he 
would  manifest  no  more  love  for  his  kingdom  than 
the  value  he  set  upon  the  subject  he  offered  in  their 
behalf.  But  if,  instead  of  giving  up  one  of  his  com- 
mon subjects  for  the  preservation  of  the  rest,  he 
should  make  an  offering  of  his  only  son,  the  sole  heir 
of  all  his  substance  and  authority,  his  love  for  his 
kingdom  would  appear  incomparably  greater.  In  like 
manner,  if  the  Son,  whom  God  sent  into  the  world 
43 


338       CONNEXION    OF    DIVINE    PLURALITY    WITH    OTHER 

and  offered  in  sacrifice  upon  the  cross,  were  only 
human,  his  love  for  the  world  would  not  be  manifested 
in  a  very  high  degree.  It  would  appear  only  in  exact 
proportion  to  the  value  he  set  upon  the  victim.  If 
the  Son,  who  was  sent  into  the  world  were  a  super- 
angelic  being,  God's  love  for  mankind  in  sending  him 
into  the  world  to  make  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  would  ap- 
pear greater,  than  if  he  were  merely  human.  But 
upon  this  hypothesis  his  manifested  love  for  the  world 
Avould  not  answer  to  that  high  description,  which  is 
given  of  it  in  the  sacred  scriptures.  It  would  appear 
unspeakably  less,  than  it  would  appear  by  admitting 
that  the  Son,  who  made  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  was  not 
only  the  "second  man,"  but  "the  Ijord  from  heaven;" 
that  he  was  not  only  in  the  "form  of  a  servant,"  but 
that  he  was  "the  Lord  of  glory."  Admit  the  divinity 
of  Christ,  and  the  love  of  God  manifested  toward  the 
human  race  appears  worthy  of  him;  it  appears  adapted 
to  their  necessities;  and  correspondent  to  the  language 
of  scripture,  which  exhibits  it. 

The  doctrine  of  Christ's  divinity  appears  to  be  the 
foundation  of  justification   by  faith    in  his  name.     If 
he    be   divine,   he  is  mighty  to  save.     "He  is   able  to 
save  them  to   the  uttermost  that  come  unto  God   by 
him.     Neither  is    there    salvation  in  any   other;  for 
there  is  none  other  name  under  heaven  given  among 
men  whereby  we  must   be  saved.     For  other  founda- 
tion can  no  man  lay  than   that  is  laid,   which  is  Jesus 
Christ.     I   know  whom  I  have  believed,  and  am  per- 
suaded that  he   is  able    to  keep  that  which   I    have 
committed  unto  him  against  that  day."     The  absolute 
sufficiency  of  Jesus  Christ  to  save,  appears  to  be  ex- 
pressed by  these  passages  of  scripture.     If  he  possess 
this  absolute  sufficiency,  he  is  able  to  make  an  expia- 
tion for  sin.     He  is  able  to  be   the  end  of  the  law  for 
righteousness  to  every  one  that  believeth.     If  he  pos- 
sess this  ability,  people  may  with  safety  have  faith  in 
his  name.     They  may  with   consistency  not  only  be- 
lieve the  doctrines,   which  he  taught;  but  they  may 


DOCTRINES    OF    THE    SACRED     SCRIPTURES.  339 

repose  entire  confidence  in  his  merits,  and  in  the  ful- 
filment of  his  promises.  Faith  in  the  Lord  Jesus  is 
one  of  the  most  prominent  conditions  of  justification 
and  salvation.  "Being  justified  hy  faith,  we  have 
peace  with  God  through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Whom 
God  hath  set  forth  to  be  a  propitiation  through  Jailh 
in  his  blood,  to  declare  his  righteousness  for  the  remis- 
sion of  sins  that  are  past,  through  the  forbearance  of 
God.  Whosoever  believeth  in  him  should  not  perish, 
but  have  eternal  life.  For  God  so  loved  the  world, 
that  he  gave  his  only  begotten  Son,  that  whosoever 
believeth  in  him  should  not  perish,  but  have  everlast- 
ing life.  By  him  all  that  believe  are  justified  from 
all  things,  from  which  ye  could  not  be  justified  by  the 
law  of  Moses.  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  thou  shalt  be  saved.  Ye  believe  in  God,  believe 
also  in  me."  By  this  last  text  of  scripture  it  appears 
that  Christ  designed  to  convey  an  idea  that  there  was 
the  same  ground  for  believing  in  him,  that  there  was 
for  believing  in  God. 

If  Christ  be  divine,  it  is  suitable  that  we  should 
make  him  the  Object  of  our  faith,  it  is  safe  to  make 
him  the  Object  of  our  confidence  and  trust,  it  is  his 
just  due  that  we  should  view  and  honor  him  as  the 
Author  of  salvation.  There  is  no  caution  given,  in  the 
scriptures,  lest  we  should  love  the  Lord  Jesus  too 
much;  repose  too  much  confidence  in  his  merits;  or 
ascribe  too  much  honor  to  his  name.  He  testified 
that  he  had  all  authority  in  heaven  and  in  earth;  and 
he  proved  that  it  was  his  prerogative  to  forgive  sins. 
Such  a  Being  is  a  proper  object  of  faith.  Such  a  being 
is  competent  to  make  a  sacrifice  for  sin,  and  to  justify 
rebellious  subjects  on  his   own  conditions. 

If  Jesus  Christ  be  merely  a  finite  being,  deputized 
and  commissioned  of  God  to  be  a  priest;  to  make  an 
offering  for  sin,  to  be  a  Mediator  and  Savior,  he  must 
receive  his  qualifications  from  him,  who  appointed  him 
to  these  high  and  important  oflices.  If  this  be  true, 
why  does  faith  terminate  in  this  dependent  agent?  Why 


340       CONNEXION    OP    DIVINE    PLURALITY    WITH    OTHER 

is  not  intimation  given  that  he  is  but  an  instrument,  by 
which  God  operates;  that  faith  and  confidence  must 
not  be  reposed  absolutely  in  hiui;  but  must  extend  ulti- 
mately to  God?  Why  is  not  the  divine  prerogative 
guarded  vi'ith  greater  circumspection;  and  why  is  not 
a  barrier  raised  with  such  visible  discrimination,  that 
it  would  naturally  prevent  people  from  giving  God's 
glory  to  another.  Christ  said,  "ye  believe  in  God, 
believe  also  in  me."  This  language  naturally  conveys 
an  idea,  that  belief  in  Christ  was  no  less  important 
than  belief  in  God.  When  Clirist  was  at  meat  in  a 
Pharisee's  house,  a  certain  woman,  who  was  a  sinner, 
came  and  stood  behind  him  weeping,  washed  his  feet 
with  tears,  kissed  them,  anointed  and  wiped  them  with 
the  hairs  of  her  head.  Jesus  said  unto  her,  "Thy 
sins  are  forgiven.  Thy  faith  hath  saved  thee;  go  in 
peace."  In  view  of  her  conduct  toward  Christ  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  her  faith  was  in  him;  and  it  ap- 
pears equally  evident  that  it  was  on  the  ground  of  this 
faith  he  forgave  and  saved  her.  Jesus  said  unto 
Thomas,  "because  thou  hast  seen  me  thou  hast  be- 
lieved, blessed  are  they,  that  have  not  seen,  and  yet  have 
believed^  John  the  Baptist  taught  the  necessity  and 
importance  of  faith  in  Christ.  "He  that  believeth 
on  the  Son  hath  everlasting  life;  and  he  that  believeth 
not  the  Son  shall  not  see  life."  Christ  expressed  the 
same  sentiment  when  he  said,  "He  that  believeth  on 
me  hath  everlasting  life."  The  apostles  attached  the 
same  importance  to  faith  in  the  Son  of  God.  When 
the  keeper  of  the  prison  inquired  of  Paul  and  Silas 
what  he  must  do  to  be  saved,  their  reply  was,  "Believe 
on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  thou  shalt  be  saved." 
The  apostles  taught,  that  justification  was  by  faith  in 
the  Son  of  God.  When  the  scriptures  attach  such 
an  importance  to  faith  in  Christ,  it  seems  unreasona- 
ble to  believe  that  he  is  only  a  created  being.  God 
has  sent  prophets,  apostles,  and  other  holy  men  into 
the  world,  who  have  died  martyrs  for  the  cause  of 
rehgion.     He   hath  sent  angels    also   to    minister    to 


DOCTRINES    OF    THE    SAGRED    SCRIPTURES,  341 

tiiose,  who  are  heirs  of  salvation.  Of  what  avail 
would  it  be  to  trust  in  tiiem?  Or  what  connexion  would 
there  be  between  faith  in  them  and  salvation?  Tho 
same  undoubtedly,  that  there  would  be  between  iaith 
in  Christ  and  salvation,  if  he  were  not  superior  to  one 
of  them.  If  the  Son  be  but  a  finite  being,  the  ground 
of  faith  in  his  name  appears  to  be  greatly  weakened; 
confidence  in  his  merits  appears  to  be  presumption; 
and  justification  by  faith  in  his  name  seems  to  cast  the 
divine  Sovereign  into  the  back  ground  in  the  scheme 
of  redemption.  But  admit  the  divinity  of  Christ  and 
his  union  with  the  Father,  and  christian  faith  begins 
and  terminates  in  Deity;  confidence  in  the  Savior  is 
well  founded;  and  justification,  founded  on  faith  in  the 
merits  of  Christ,  is  consistent  with  the  validitv  of  the 
divine  law. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  intimately  connected 
with  the  doctrine  of  saints'  perseverance.  If  the 
contracting  parties  in  the  work  of  redemption  be 
divine,  each  is  able  to  perform,  and  will  faithfully 
perform  his  stipulated  part.  The  Son  agreed  to  come 
into  the  world  to  do  the  will  of  his  Father.  It  was 
the  Father's  will  to  lay  upon  him  the  iniquity  of  us 
all.  "It  pleased  the  Lord  to  bruise  him;  he  hath  put 
him  to  grief."  In  view  of  this  suffering,  he  said  in 
prayer  to  the  Father,  "not  as  I  will,  but  as  thou  wilt." 
At  another  time  he  said,  "I  came  down  from  heaven, 
not  to  do  mine  own  will,  but  the  will  of  him  that  sent 
me."  He  did  and  suffered  according  to  contract, 
which  was  the  will  of  the  Father.  As  a  recomj^ense 
lor  what  he  did  and  suffered,  he  was  to  see  his  seed. 
He  was  to  sec  of  the  travail  of  his  soul  and  be  satis- 
fied. He  was  to  receive  the  heathen  for  his  inherit- 
ance, and  the  uttermost  parts  of  the  earth  for  his 
possession.  Christ  declared  that  the  Father  had  given 
him  some  of  the  human  race,  "I  have  manifested  thy 
name  unto  the  men,  which  thou  gavest  me  out  of  the 
world;  thine  thov  were,  and  thou  iravcst  them  mo.     I 


342       CONNEXION    OP    DIVINE    PLURALITY    AVITH    OTHER 

pray  not  for  the  world,  but  for  them,  which  thou  hast 
given  me. 

Those,  who  are  ^iven  to  Christ  are  his,  not  by  gift 
only;  but  they  will  be  his  by  faith  in  him,  and  by  union 
with  him.  "All  that  the  Father  giveth  me,  shall  come 
to  me."  When  they  are  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
who  proceedeth  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and 
are  brought  mto  his  kingdou),  they  are  truly  his  peo- 
ple; and  he  has  then  received  his  stipulated  recom- 
pense. These  constitute  his  kingdom;  he  has  author- 
ity to  rule  over  them,  and  he  is  their  King.  If  he  be 
divine,  he  is  competent  to  this  degree  of  sovereignty. 
He  is  able  to  keep  his  subjects  under  his  dominion. 
The  same  Spirit  which  he  sent  to  bring  them  into 
subjection  to  his  authority,  he  is  able  to  send  for  the 
purpose  of  guiding  and  supporting  them  in  the  ways 
of  truth  and  obedience.  If  the  Holy  Spirit  be  divine, 
he  is  able  to  perform  this  part  of  the  work.  He  is 
able  to  carry  on  the  work  of  sanctification  in  the  heart, 
till  it  is  perfected.  He  is  not  only  able,  but  he  will 
do  it.  "He,  which  hath  begun  a  good  work  in  you, 
Avill  perform  it  until  the  day  of  Jesus  Christ."  With 
his  gracious  operations  believers  are  sealed  unto  the 
day  of  redemption. 

Christ  has  expressed  his  ability  to  keep  his  sub- 
jects from  apostasy.  He  saith,  "I  give  unto  them 
eternal  life,  and  they  shall  never  perish;  neither  shall 
any  man  pluck  them  cut  of  ray  hand,"  John  10:28. 
"While  I  was  with  them  in  the  world,  I  kept  them  in 
thy -name;  those,  that  thou  gavest  me  1  have  kept,  and 
none  of  them  is  lost,  but  the  son  of  perdition,  (i.  e. 
but  the  son  of  perdition,  not  being  given  to  me,  is  lost) 
that  the  scripture  might  be  fulfilled,"  John  17:12. 
"Of  them  which  thou  gavest  me  have  I  lost  none," 
John  18:9.  "He  is  ahlc  to  save  them  to  the  uttermost 
that  come  unto  God  by  him,  seeing  he  ever  liveth  to 
make  intercession  for  them,"  Heb.  7:25.  Now  unto  him 
that  is  able  to  keep  you  from  falling,  and  to  present 
you  faultless   before   the  presence  of  his   glory    with 


DOCTRINES    OP    THE    SACRED    SCRIPTURES.  343 

exceeding  joy?"  Jude  24.  These  texts  'appear  to 
prove  that  Jesus  Christ  is  able^  and  that  he  actually 
does  save  believers  from  final  apostasy.  It  is  admit- 
ted that  Christ  performs  this  work  by  sending  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  by  intercession  with  the  Father.  But 
what  created  being  has  authority  to  send  the  Holy 
Spirit  into  the  hearts  of  believers  to  comfort  and  to 
stabiish  them?  What  created  being  has  invariable 
prevalence   with  God  in  behalf  of  transgressors? 

If  Jesus  Christ  save  his  people  from  their  sins, 
there  appears  to  be  evidence  (hat  he  is  divine.  Those, 
who  are  renewed,  are  reneived  by  divine  power. 
They  are  born  of  the  Spirit;  they  are  born  of  God. 
They  are  created  in  (or  through)  Christ  Jesus  unto 
good  works.  Jt  requires  no  less  power  to  preserve 
spiritual  life  in  the  soul,  than  it  did  at  first  to  originate 
it.  There  is  nothing  in  renewed  humanity,  which  se- 
cures it  from  declension,  li'  the  parents  of  the  human 
race  apostatized  from  God,  and  lost  their  primitive 
dignity  and  purity,  there  is  nothing  in  human  nature, 
partially  sanctified,  which  will  secure  it  from  final 
apostasy.  As  the  Lord  Jesus  keeps  his  people  so  that 
none  of  them  will  be  lost,  there  seems  to  be  clear 
evidence  that  his  power  is  divine. 

The  Son  of  God  possesses  all  authority  over  his 
mediatorial  kingdom.  He  is  King  of  saints.  But 
what  is  this  extent  of  authority,  if  his  power  be  not 
commensurate  with  it?  If  his  power  be  finite,  his  king- 
dom appears  to  be  less  secure,  than  if  his  power  were 
infinite.  It  appears  that  his  subjects  could  not  have 
perfect  confidence  in  him.  If  they  look  to  him  for 
that  divine  influence,  which  is  necessary  to  keep  them 
from  declension,  what  assurance  can  a  finite  being 
give,  that  he  can  command  the  operations  of  God's 
Spirit  to  guide  and  support  them?  Should  he  attempt 
to  sustain  them  by  his  own  power,  the  work  would  be 
disproportionate  to  his  ability.  Other  power  might 
be  as  great  as  his,  and  counteract  all  his  operations. 
Or  it  might  be  greater  than  his,  and  subvert  his  whole 


344       CONNEXION    OF    DIVINE   PLURALITY    WITH    OTHER 

kingdom.  But  could  not  power  be  imparted  to  him 
from  the  infinite  Being,  which  would  enable  him  to 
secure  all  the  subjects  of  his  kingdom?  It  is  admitted 
that  power  was  communicated  to  the  man  Christ  Jesus 
in  the  same  manner  as  it  was  communicated  to  prophets 
and  apostles;  but  in  a  higher  degree.  If,  by  the  reception 
of  this  power,  he  was  able  to  support  spiritual  life  in 
believers,  then  prophets  and  apostles  might  do  the 
same  in  proportion  to  the  strength  given  them.  But 
the  scriptures  aiford  no  evidence  that  believers  are, 
in  any  degree,  kept  from  apostasy,  by  prophets,  or 
apostles.  Were  it  possible  that  a  finite  being  should 
be  qualified,  by  power  imparted  to  him,  to  stablish  his 
subjects  unto  the  end,  and  to  bring  his  kingdom  to 
consummation,  it  seems  improper  to  call  him  a  king. 
It  seems  to  be  a  perversion  of  language  to  call  one  a 
king  or  savior,  who  depends  on  a  higher  being  for  all 
his  power  arid  authority.  An  idea  of  absolute  depend- 
ence does  not  correspond  with  our  ideas  of  perfect 
sovereignty.  If  Moses  could,  with  strict  propriety, 
be  called  the  savior  of  the  Israelites  from  Egyptian 
bondage;  if  he  could  be  called,  in  the  true  sense  of  the 
word,  the  author  of  the  miracles,  which  God  wrought 
by  his  hand,  then  might  a  created  being,  if  compe- 
tently endued  with  power  from  on  high,  be  called  the 
Savior  of  the  world;  or  the  Author  of  salvation.  But 
it  is  evident  that  such  is  not  the  natural  use  of  the 
words,  author  and  savior.  If  Christ  be  not  divine,  it 
follows  that  the  head  of  the  church  is  not  essentially 
different  from  one  of  the  members  of  his  body;  that 
the  head-stone  of  the  corner  is  not  essentially  differ- 
ent from  any  stone  of  the  building;  that  the  Redeemer 
and  redeemed  are  almost  upon  an  equality.  It  seems 
that  believers  could  not  repose  absolute  confidence  in 
his  merits  and  efficiency.  It  seems  that  his  subjects 
might  be  plucked  out  of  his  hand,  and  be  finally  lost. 
It  seems  that  he  could  not  assure  the  subjects  of  his 
kingdom  below,  that  they  would  be  subjects  of  his 
kingdom  above.     Limit  the  power  of  the  Savior,  and 


DOCTRINES    OF    THE    SACRED    SCRIPTURES.  345 

the  perseverance  of  saints  appears  to  be  uncertain; 
and  there  appears  to  be  a  possibility  that  he  may  lose 
a  part,  or  all  of  his  recompense.  The  divinity  of 
Jesus  Christ  appears  to  be  intimately  connected  with 
the  final  judgment  of  the  human  race.  The  scrip- 
tures abundantly  assert  that  he  will  officiate  as  Judge 
on  that  important  occasion;  and  administer  reward 
and  punishment  according  to  characters.  "The  Father 
judgeth  no  man,  but  bath  committed  all  judgment  unto 
the  Son.  We  shall  all  stand  before  the  judgment  seat 
of  Christ.  Who  shall  judge  the  quick  and  the  dead 
at  his  appearing  and  his  kingdom.  When  the  Son  of 
man  shall  come  in  his  glory,  and  all  the  holy  angels 
with  him,  then  shall  he  sit  upon  the  throne  of  his 
glory;  and  before  him  shall  be  gathered  all  nations, 
and  he  shall  separate  them  one  from  another,  as  a 
shepherd  divideth  his  sheep  from  the  goats;  and  he 
shall  set  the  sheep  on  his  right  hand,  but  the  goats  on 
the  left.  Then  shall  the  King  say  unto  them  on  his 
right  hand.  Come  ye  blessed  of  my  Father,  inherit 
the  kingdom  prepared  for  you  from  the  foundation  of 
the  world.  Then  shall  he  say  also  unto  them  on  the 
left  hand.  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed  into  everlasting 
fire,  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his  angels.  And 
these  shall  go  aAvay  into  everlasting  punishment;  but 
the  righteous  into  life  eternal." 

If  Christ  be  divine,  as  well  as  human,  he  is  worthy 
of  the  judgment  seat;  and  he  is  competent  to  perform 
the  duties  of  his  office.  If  his  knowledge  be  not  cir- 
cumscribed, he  knows  all  the  windings  of  the  human 
heart.  He  knows  all  the  thoughts,  all  the  desires,  all 
the  words,  all  the  actions  of  every  individual  of  the 
human  race,  from  Adam  down  to  his  latest  offspring. 
If  his  wisdom  be  unlimited,  he  is  able  to  compare 
every  exercise  of  the  human  heart,  and  every  action 
of  human  life  with  divine  requirements,  and  discern 
their  coincidence,  or  disagreement.  He  is  able  to 
weigh  the  guilt  of  every  offence,  and  apportion  pun- 
ishment according  to  its  desert.  He  is  able  also  to 
44 


346    CONNEXION    OF    DIVINE    PLURALITY    WITH    OTHER 

assign  reward  agreeably  to  the  divine  promises.  If 
no  power  be  greater  than  his,  he  can  carry  his  deci- 
sions into  execution.  He  can  banish  the  wicked  from 
the  presence  of  the  Lord,  and  from  the  glory  of  his 
power;  and  consign  them  to  everlasting  punishment; 
and  he  can  receive  the  righteous  to  life  eternal.  If 
the  Judge  of  the  earth  be  divine  as  well  as  human, 
the  scenes  of  the  last  day  appear  with  the  most  awful 
solemnity.  The  human  race,  waked  from  their  long 
slee()  of  death,  and  those  who  are  alive  on  the  earth 
are  summoned  to  attend.  He  who  created  and  re- 
deemed the  world  appears  on  the  judgment  seat. 
With  one  look  he  distinguishes  characters.  With  one 
word  he  separates  them  to  the  right  and  left.  There 
is  no  deception.  There  is  no  error  of  judgment.  The 
sentence  is  pronounced.  There  is  no  appeal.  The 
work  is  done.  The  business  of  this  all  eventful  day  is 
closed  for  eternity.  The  object,  the  transactions,  the 
issues  of  this  daj^  are  worthy  of  a  divine  Judge. 

If  Christ  be  merely  a  created  being,  the  judgment 
seat  appears  with  less  majesty;  and  the  whole  scene 
appears  with  less  grandeur.  It  is  presumed  that  no 
finite  being  can,  by  the  efforts  of  his  own  mind,  discern 
the  whole  character  of  every  individual  of  the  human 
race.  It  seems  incredible  that  such  an  amazing  extent 
of  knowledge  should  be  infused,  at  once,  into  any 
finite  capacity.  It  appears  incredible  that  any  created 
being  should  be  vested  with  authority  to  judge  and 
pronounce  sentence,  in  a  case  infinitely  momentous,  in 
his  own  name,  and  with  all  the  majesty  of  divinity. 
If  the  judge  be  an  unconscious  organ,  through  which 
the  Deity  speaks  and  acts;  or  if  he  be  prompted  in 
every  word  and  action  by  the  divine  Being,  he  appears 
with  only  borrowed  excellence,  borrowed  authority, 
and  with  only  a  semblance  of  the  majesty  of  a  Judge. 
It  is  admitted  that  the  divine  Sovereign  has  a  perfect 
right  to  administer  his  laws  and  to  award  retribution 
as  he  pleases.  But  at  the  same  time  it  is  expected 
that  his  method  of  government  and  of  final  decision 


DOCTRINES    OF   THE    SACRED    SCRIPTURES.  347 

will  be  worthy  of  himself,  and  will  manifest  the  per- 
fections of  his  nature.  Should  the  judiciary  depart- 
ment of  a  civil  government  be  naturally  unqualified  to 
perform  the  functions  of  their  office;  but  were  taught 
and  dictated  in  every  step  of  their  proceedings  by 
the  chief  magistrate  of  the  state  or  nation,  would  not 
the  bench  labor  under  a  burden  of  indignity,  unbecom- 
ing the  judgment  seat.-^  If  we  may  reason  from  small 
things  to  great,  it  must  be  inferred,  that,  if  Jesus 
Christ  be  not  competent  in  his  own  nature  to  perform 
the  duties  of  Judge  of  the  world,  he  appears  with 
infinitely  less  dignity;  and  the  whole  scene  and  all  the 
transactions  of  the  judgment  day  appear  with  much 
less  grandeur,  than  if  the  Judge  were  divine,  and  of 
himself  performed  the  duties  of  his  office.  If  it  be 
admitted  that  the  Judge  of  the  world  unites  in  him- 
self human  and  divine  nature,  he  is  not  only  touched 
with  a  feeling  of  human  infirmities;  but  he  has  also  a 
consciousness  of  divine  claims.  While  he  feels  a  lively 
interest  in  the  restoration  and  happiness  of  humanity, 
he  feels  a  holy  jealousy  for  the  rights  of  the  divine 
throne. 

The  doctrine  of  Christ's  divinity  is  intimately  con- 
nected with  the  doctrine  of  future  retribution.  If 
Jesus  Christ  be  both  human  and  divine,  he  is  able  to 
make  an  expiation  for  sin;  to  satisfy  the  demands  of 
the  divine  law;  to  work  out  a  complete  righteousness 
for  the  justification  of  the  disobedient  through  faith  in 
his  name.  Though  sin  be  of  infinite  guilt,  yet  the 
victim  offisred  upon  the  cross  was  sufficient  to  make 
an  adequate  expiation.  Having  magnified  and  honored 
the  divine  law,  he  was  able  to  treat  with  rebellious 
subjects.  He  was  able  to  propose  his  own  conditions 
for  their  reconciliation  and  pardon.  He  was  able  to 
confer  the  promised  reward  upon  those  who  should 
comply  with  the  terms  proposed;  and  he  was  equally 
able  to  inflict  the  punishment,  which  stood  against 
impenitent  transgressors. 


348    CONNEXION    OF    DIVINE    PLURALITY    WITH    OTHER 

If  Christ  be  but  a  finite  being,  and  still  made  a 
propitiation  for  sin,  it  follows  that  sin  is  of  limited 
guilt;  otherwise  he  could  not  have  made  a  complete 
expiation.  Admit  the  finitude  of  the  Savior,  and  he 
appears  inadequate  to  make  provision  for  the  ever- 
lasting blessedness  of  the  human  race.  What  can  a 
finite  being  offer,  which  is  equivalent  to  that  eternal 
weight  of  glory,  which  is  promised  to  the  righteous. 
Should  he  plead  all  the  finite  qualities  of  his  sacrifice, 
it  would  appear  entirely  disproportionate  to  a  salvation 
from  an  infinite,  an  endless  punishment.  If  the  reward 
conferred  on  believers  were  only  commensui'ate  with 
his  limited  righteousness,  the  time  would  come,  when 
they  had  received  all  that  was  purchased  for  them. 
It  is  natural  to  inquire,  what  will  be  their  condition 
afterward? 

If  the  sacrifice,  offered  upon  the  cross,  was  made 
by  merely  a  created  being,  and  the  value  of  it  was,  of 
course,  limited;  if  sin  be  but  a  finite  evil,  those,  who 
die  in  their  sins  and  receive  the  sentence  of  condem- 
nation, are  not  in  a  desperate  condition.  As  a  limited 
ransom  has  once  made  satisfaction  for  iniquity,  it  may 
do  the  same  again.  As  sin  contains  but  finite  guilt, 
finite  punishment  will  make  expiation  for  it.  Of  course, 
a  point  in  duration  will  arrive,  when  transgressors, 
who  died  in  impenitence,  will  have  suffered  all  the 
punishment  incurred  by  their  offences  during  their 
probationary  state.  They  will  then  have  a  claim  to 
Idc  liberated  from  their  sufferings.  As  they  had  satis- 
fied the  demands  of  the  law,  they  would  be  no  longer 
under  its  curse.  As  they  had  not  complied  with  the 
conditions  of  the  Gospel,  they  could  not  receive  its 
promises.  It  is  hard  to  conceive  what  would  be  their 
situation.  Admit  the  divinity  of  Christ  and  the  right- 
eous have  assurance  that  they  shall,  in  another  state 
of  existence,  enjoy  everlasting  blessedness;  and  the 
finally  impenitent  have  the  same  evidence  that  they 
shall  suffer  an  equal  duration  of  punishment.  Deny 
the  divinity  of  Christ,  and  there  appears  to  be  no 


DOCTRINES    OF    THE    SACRED    SCRIPTURES.  349 

proof  that  the  glory  and  blessedness  of  the  righteous 
will  be  immortal;  and  there  appears  to  be  equal  want 
of  proof  that  the  punishment  of  the  wicked  will  be 
endless.  By  this  hypothesis  the  encouragement  and 
hope  of  the  righteous  are  greatly  abated;  and  the 
fears  of  the  wicked  are  almost  destroyed.  Reward 
and  punishment  lose  almost  all  their  effect. 

A  correct  belief  of  the  Son  is  intimately  connected 
with  a  correct  belief  of  the  Father;  and  a  denial,  or 
dishonor  of  the  former  implies  a  denial  or  dishonor  of 
the  latter.  The  relative  names,  Father  and  Son, 
express  an  affinity  subsisting  between  them.  If  these 
names,  which  represent  the  distinctions  of  the  divine 
Nature,  are  used  figuratively,  there  is,  undoubtedly, 
ground  in  the  subject  for  this  figurative  language. 
When  the  names,  father  and  son  are  used  to  expiess 
the  relationship,  subsisting  between  a  parent  and  his 
male  offspring,  the  first  ideas,  conveyed  by  these  rela- 
tive names,  are  their  affinity  and  the  sameness  of  their 
nature.  If  these  names  are  correctly  applied  to  the 
divine  nature,  they  naturally  convey  the  same  ideas. 
If  a  parent  be  human,  it  follows,  of  course,  that  his 
son  is  human.  If  figurative  language  be  drawn  from 
this  relationship,  and  applied  to  the  divine  Nature,  it 
is  expected  that  it  will  express  some  striking  analogy 
between  the  relationship  of  the  Father  and  the  Son, 
and  the  relationship  of  a  human  parent  and  his  child. 
If  the  Son  be  divine,  this  name  expresses  the  analogy 
in  the  clearest  manner;  it  expresses  their  intimate 
connexion,  and  the  sameness  of  their  nature.  If  the 
Son  be  not  divine,  the  analogy  is  greatly  weakened, 
and  their  relative  names  are  much  less  expressive. 

It  is  admitted  that  God  is  called  the  Father  of  the 
human  family.  In  a  more  special  sense  he  is  called 
the  Father  of  believers;  and  they  are  called  his  sons. 
It  appears  that  Christ  claimed  a  relationship  with  the 
Father  much  nearer  than  this.  The  Jews  understood 
him  to  call  God  his  Father  in  a  peculiar  sense,  in  a 
sense,    which   implied    that    he   himself   was   divioe. 


350       CONNEXION     OF    DIVINE    PLURALITY    WITH    OTHER 

After  Christ  had  healed  an  impotent  man  on  the  Sab- 
bath, the  Jews  accused  hira  of  profanation  of  holy 
time.  He  replied,  "My  Father  worketh  hitherto 
and  I  work.  Therefore  the  Jews  sought  the  more 
to  kill  him,  because  he  not  only  had  broken  the  Sab- 
bath, but  said  also  that  God  was  his  Father,  (^urt^a 
iliQv)  making  himself  equal  with  God.  /J/ov  is  expres- 
sive and  definite  in  its  meaning;  it  signifies,  peculiaris 
sui  generis,  suus.  Hed.  Lex.;  (peculiar,  of  its  own 
kind,  his  own.)  Sohleusner,  under  his  first  definition 
of  the  word  gives  the  following  significations;  proprius, 
suus,  et  de  omni,  quod  quis  jure  suum  vocare  potest, 
€t  ullo  aliquo  modo  ad  alequem  pertinet.  (Special, 
proper;  his  own,  in  respect  to  every  thing,  which  one 
can  justly  call  his  own,  and  belongs,  in  any  way,  to 
him.) 

At  another  time,  when  Christ  called  God  his  Father, 
the  Jews  accused  him  of  blasphemy,  because  he  being 
a  man  made  himself  God.  It  appears  evident  that 
the  Jews  believed  that  the  Son  of  God  was  divine,  and 
that  he  was  the  promised  Messiah.  But  they  believ- 
ed that  Jesus  was  not  that  personage;  that  he  was 
merely  a  man,  and  that  he  made  pretensions  to  divinity. 
In  this  view  of  the  subject  they  imagined  that  he 
blasphemed  by  claiming  a  relationship  with  God, 
which  implied  equality.  They  believed,  that  by 
calling  himself  the  Son  of  God,  he  blasphemed;  and 
that,  according  to  their  law  he  ought  to  die  as  a  blas- 
phemer. If  the  Jews  formed  wrong  ideas  of  the 
language  of  Christ,  when  he  called  God  his  Father,  it 
seems  not  a  little  extraordinary  that  he  did  not  correct 
their  mistake;  and  shew  them  plainly  that  his  rela- 
tionship to  God  was  to  be  understood  in  a  reduced 
sense;  that  it  was  no  more  than  the  relationship  of  a 
creature  to  his  Creator. 

It  is  in  vain  to  attempt  to  maintain  that  the  Jews 
knowingly  perverted  the  language  of  Christ;  and 
made  him  say  what  he  did  not  design  to  say.  For 
■the  same  word,  which  they  connected  with  Father,  to 


DOCTRINES    OP    THE    SACRED    SCRfPTURES.  351 

express  the  near  connexion  of  the  Son  with  him  and 
their  sameness  of  nature,  the  apostle  Paul  connects 
with  Son,  to  shew  the  special  relationship  of  the  b'ather 
to  him,  Rom.  8:32.  The  same  meaning,  which  the 
unbelievinfij  Jews  attached  to  the  word  (/5;ov)  the 
apostle  undoubtedly  attached  to  it.  If  their  applica- 
tion of  it  were  preposterous,  the  apostle's  application 
of  it  will  stand  with  all  its  force. 

If  the  connexion  of  the  Father  and  Son  imply  the 
divinity  of  the  latter,  it  follows  that  a  denial  of  the 
Son  implies  a  denial  of  the  Father,  as  such;  and  the 
dishonor,  which  is  cast  upon  the  Son  is  cast  also  upon 
the  Father.  The  scriptures  represent  the  connexion 
of  the  Father  and  Son,  to  be  so  intimate  that  what  is 
predicated  of  one  is  predicated  of  the  other.  "The 
Son  can  do  nothing  of  himself,  but  what  he  seeth  the 
Father  do;  for  what  things  soever  he  doeth,  these 
also  doeth  the  Sou  likewise.  For  as  the  Father 
raiseth  up  the  dead,  and  quickeneth  them,  eveii  so  the 
Son  quickeneth  whom  he  will.  As  the  Father  know- 
eth  me,  even  so  know  I  the  Father.  If  I  do  not  the 
works  of  my  Father,  believe  me  not;  but  if  I  do, 
though  ye  believe  not  m£,  believe  the  works;  that  ye 
may  know  and  believe  that  the  Fatlier  is  in  me  and  I 
in  him.  The  Father  that  dwelleth  in  me,  he  doeth 
the  works."  I'hese  texts  afford  evidence  that  there 
is  such  a  union  of  the  Father  and  Son,  that  there  is  a 
joint  operation  in  all  their  works.  Neither  of  them 
doeth  any  thing  o/'  himself;  i.  e.  separately  and  dis- 
tinctly; but  what  one  doth  the  other  doth  also. 

If  there  be  this  intimate  connexion  of  the  Father 
and  Son,  it  is  evident  that  what  honors  one,  honors 
the  other;  that  the  Father  may  be  glorified  in  the 
Son;  and  that  whosoever  had  seen  the  Son  had  also 
seen  the  Father.  This  sentiment  is  clearly  expressed 
in  scripture.  "Whosoever  denieth  the  Son,  the  same 
hath  not  the  Father.  He  is  antichrist  that  denieth 
the  Father  and  the  Son.  It  appears  that  St.  John 
considered  a  denial  of  the  Son  a  denial  of  the  Father. 


352    CONNEXION    OF    DIVINE    PLURALITY    WITH    OTHER 

This  is  evidently  true  in  view  of  their  relationship. 
If  there  be  no  Son,  there  is  no  Father;  and  if  there 
be  no  Father,  there  is  no  Son.  If  relationship  be 
denied  on  one  side,  it  is,  of  course,  denied  on  the  other. 
Whosoever  denieth  the  Son,  the  same  doth  not  ac- 
knowledge the  Father.  He  does  not  acknowledge 
his  relationship.  He  does  not  acknowledge  the  testi- 
mony, which  the  Father  bore  concerning  him  at  his 
baptism,  at  his  transfiguration,  and  by  raising  him  from 
the  dead. 

It  will  be  better  understood  what  St.  John  meant 
by  a  denial  of  the  Son,  if  the  occasion  and  object  of 
writing  his  epistle  be  considered.  At  that  time,  there 
were  some,  who  denied  the  divinity,  and  others,  who 
denied  the  humanity,  of  Christ.  One  great  object  of 
this  epistle  was  to  correct  these  errors.  In  this  epistle 
he  calls  Jesus  Christ  "that  eternal  Life,  which  was 
with  the  Father,  and  was  manifested  unto  us."  He 
calls  him  the  Son  of  God.  He  set  it  down  as  a  test 
of  true  and  inspired  teachers  that  they  confessed  Jesus 
Christ  was  come  in  the  flesh;  and  a  denial  of  this 
truth,  he  considered  a  characteristic  mark  of  anti- 
christ. It  is  evident  that  by  a  denial  of  the  Son,  the 
apostle  meant  a  rejection  of  his  divinity  or  humanity; 
either  of  which  would  be  a  refusal  to  acknowledge 
hiui  to  be  the  Christ  of  God.  When  St.  John  speaks 
of  the  denial  of  the  Son  in  connexion  with  a  denial  of 
the  Father,  he  undoubtedly  means,  by  Son,  the  divin- 
ity, not  the  humanity  of  Christ.  On  this  ground  it  is 
manifest  that  he,  who  denieth  the  Son,  doth  not 
believe  in  the  Father.  The  apostle  James  appears 
to  have  the  same  opinion  of  the  connexion  of  the 
Father  and  the  Son,  when  he  speaks  of  false  teachers, 
who  denied  the  only  Lord  God,  and  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ. 

If  the  Son  be  not  divine,  a  denial  of  his  divinity  is 
not  a  denial  of  the  Father.  If  the  Son  be  merely 
human,  the  connexion  between  his  humanity  and  the 


DOCTRINES    OF    THE    SACKED    SCRIPTURES.  353 

Father  is  not  so  near  that  a  denial  of  the  former  ini- 
phes  a  denial  of  the  latter. 

So  intimate  is  the  connexion  ot"  the  Father  and  the 
Son,  that  denial,  knowledge,  sight,  hatred  and  honor 
of  one  imply  denial,  knowledge,  sight,  hatred  and 
honor  of  the  other,  "He  is  antichrist,  that  denieth 
the  Father  and  the  Son."  Jesus  said  to  the  Jews, 
"Ye  neither  know  me,  nor  my  Father;  if  ye  had 
known  me,  ye  should  have  known  my  Father  also." 
When  Philip  asked  Christ  to  shew  him  the  Father, 
he  replied,  "Have  I  been  so  long  time  with  you,  and 
yet  hast  thou  not  known  me,  Philip?  he  that  hatli 
seen  me,  hath  seen  the  Father.  He  that  hateth  me  hatetk 
my  Father  also. — Now  have  they  both  seen  and  hated 
both  me  and  my  Father.  He  that  honoreth  not  the 
Son,  honoreth  not  the  Father,  which  hath  sent  him." 

If  Christ  be  not  divine,  a  denial  of  him  is  not  a 
denial  of  the  Father.  People  might  deny  him  divine 
perfections,  divine  authority,  and  divine  works,  and  at 
the  same  time  acknowledge  the  divine  authority  of 
the  Father.  If  the  Son  be  not  divine,  people  might 
see  and  know  him,  and,  at  the  same  time,  they  might 
neither  see  nor  know  the  Father.  They  might  hate 
him  for  his  pretensions  to  divinity,  and  at  the  same 
time,  not  hate  Divinity  itself  They  might  honor 
him  excessively,  and,  by  that  mean,  they  might  dis- 
honor the  Father.  But  if  the  Son  be  divine,  conse- 
quences follow  agreeably  to  the  Scriptures.  He  is 
not  alone,  but  the  Father  is  with  him.  What  belongs 
to  one  belongs  also  to  the  other.  Christ  said,  "All 
things  that  the  Father  hath  are  mine.  All  mine  are 
thine,  and  thine  are  mine."  Such  is  their  union  of 
nature  and  of  operations,  that  what  honors  or  dishonors 
the  Son,  honors  or  dishonors  the  Father. 

It  may  be  argued  with  some  degree  of  plausibility, 
that  if  God  send  a  messenger  into  the  world  to  treat 
Avith  the  human  race,  though  he  be  a  created  being, 
they  ought  to  receive  him  in  his  delegated  capacity, 
that  they  ought  to  honor  him;  and  that  an  acknowl- 
45 


354       CONNEXION    OF    DIVINE    PLURALITY    WITH    OTHER 

edgement  of  hlra  and  respect  shewn  him  would  be  an 
acknowledgment  ot"  the  sovereignty  of  heaven,  and 
would  reflect  honor  on  the  Divine  Majesty.  If  the 
sovereign  of  a  nation  send  a  minister  to  negotiate  with 
a  foreign  power,  if  that  power  receive  him  as  a  legit- 
imate ambassador,  this  act  is  not  only  an  acknowledg- 
ment oi  his  authority,  but  it  is  an  acknowledgment  of 
the  authority  of  his  sovereign,  and  an  expression  of 
respect  toward  him.  AH  this  is  undoubtedly  true. 
But  whom  does  he  send  to  perform  this  important 
business?  He  sends  one  of  his  own  species;  a  man 
like  himself;  equal  in  nature  and  capacity  with  his 
own.  He  is  entitled  by  his  nature  and  qualifications 
to  as  much  honor  as  his  sovereign;  and  being  commis- 
sioned, he  has  the  same  authority  to  transact  the 
business  contemplated,  as  he,  who  sent  him.  It  is 
expected  that  he  will  be  honored,  and  the  respect 
shewn  him  will  extend  to  his  sovereign.  But  suppose 
the  sovereign  sends  a  minister,  who  has  not  one  natural 
qualification  for  the  duties  of  his  office,  but  is  instructed, 
and  dictated,  and  prompted  in  every  word,  and  in 
every  step  of  his  proceedings,  would  he  not  be  disre- 
spected; and  would  not  the  disrespect  be  extended  to 
him  that  sent  hiai?  The  application  is  easy.  If  God 
has  sent  a  messenger  into  the  world  to  treat  with  the 
human  race,  who  is  not  naturally  qualified  for  the 
duties  of  his  office,  but  is  a  mere  instrument,  or  organ, 
through  which  the  divine  Being  acts,  it  might  be 
expected  that  people  would  respect  him  less  than  if 
he  possessed  natural  qualifications  for  the  duties  of 
his  office.  It  might  be  expected  that  they  would 
deny  him  in  his  official  capacity;  and  if  they  honored 
him  even  as  they  honored  the  Father,  it  would  be  by 
dishonoring  both.  But  suppose  the  Son  to  be  divine, 
and  he  is  worthy  of  honor;  and  the  glory,  which  is 
given  him  is  given  to  the  Father  also. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  appears  to  be  the  main 
pillar  of  Christianity;  the  key  stone  of  the  arch,  which 
supports  the  whole  fabric;  the  basis  of  man's  salvation. 
If  this  doctrine  be  expunged  from   the  Bible,  there 


DOCTRINES    OF    THE    SACRED    SCRIPTURES.  355 

nppears  to  be  a  chasm  through  the  whole  system. 
The  most  prominent  doctrines  of  the  gospel  appear 
to  stand  or  fall  with  it.  If  the  divine  plurality  be 
denied,  one  mystery,  it  is  true,  is  removed  from  the 
sacred  scriptures;  but  in  its  place  there  appear  to  be 
left  absurdity  and  contradiction.  The  Christian 
religion,  without  this  doctrine,  without  this  vinculum 
of  other  scripture  doctrines,  appears  like  a  scheme  of 
human  invention,  designed  to  reconcile  contrarieties, 
and  to  elTectuaie  impossibilities.  This,  more  than  any 
other  doctrine,  distinguishes  our  holy  religion  from 
human  systems;  and  gives  it  an  impression  of  its 
divine  Author,  which  philosophy  could  never  invent, 
nor  ever  efface.  The  light  of  nature  never  disclosed 
a  method,  by  which  sin  could  be  forgiven,  and  trans- 
gressors be  reconciled  to  God. 

If  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  as  it  has  been  exhib- 
ited, be  a  scriptural  doctrine,  those,  who  deny  it  arc 
in  great  error.  They  deny  the  divine  excellences  of 
the  Son  of  God.  They  deny  the  virtue  of  his  atoning 
sacrifice.  They  deny  Jiis  absolute  ability  to  save. 
They  deny  him  divine  honor.  Do  they  not,  of  course, 
deny  the  Lord,  who  bought  them?  They  disbelieve 
the  distinction  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  They  disbelieve 
his  office  and  his  peculiar  work.  If  they  do  not  speak 
a  word  against  him,  they  withhold  from  him  that 
distinct  respect,  which  is  his  just  due.  But  we  need 
to  use  the  greatest  caution  in  this  view  of  the  subject. 
There  is  danger  of  drawing  wrong  inferences  from 
others'  premises;  and  if  our  conclusions  from  their 
positions  are  legitimate,  they  may,  notwithstanding, 
heartily  disown  them. 

If  there  be  simple  unity  in  the  divine  Nature,  and 
divine  plurality  be  not  a  scriptural  doctrine,  those, 
who  embrace  it  are  in  great  error.  They  place  that 
confidence  in  a  creature,  which  they  ought  to  place 
only  in  the  Creator.  They  make  a  creature  equal 
with  God;  they  make  him  God,  they  make  him  the 
"true  God."  They  honor  a  creature  "even  as  they 
honor  the  Father." 


356  CONNEXION   OF    DIVINE    PLURALITY,    &:C. 

It  is  important  to  form  correct  sentiments  of  the 
Father,  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  If  we  can- 
not form  adequate  conceptions  of  the  ground  of  dis- 
tinction in  the  divine  Nature,  nor  of  the  ground  of 
unity  in  the  divine  plurahtj,  it  is  important  that  we 
should  have  such  a  behef  in  each,  that  we  may  apply 
to  each  respectively  for  the  blessings,  which  it  is 
their  peculiar  office  to  communicate. 

There  is  an  intimate  connexion  between  belief  and 
practice.  It  is  not  maintained  that  every  one,  who 
has  a  correct  creed,  possesses  a  good  heart  and  exhib- 
its a  Christian  character.  The  devils  believe.  But 
a  belief  of  the  truth  has  a  natural  tendency  toward 
virtue  and  piety;  and  it  would  produce  these  effects, 
if  there  were  no  counteracting  principle  in  human 
nature.  The  gift  of  revelation  implies  the  necessity 
of  believing  it;  and  of  believing  it  agreeably  to  its 
divine  import.  When  Christianity  is  corrupted,  it 
loses  proportionably  its  good  effect.  When  the 
Churches,  which  the  apostle  Paul  planted,  became 
disorderly  and  immoral,  we  find  they  had  departed 
from  sound  doctrine.  It  is  of  no  use  to  attempt  to 
estimate  the  quantum  of  religion  among  different 
religious  denominations;  and  compare  their  respective 
values.  This  is  not  the  province  of  human  reason. 
Were  the  attempt  made,  it  is  presumed  that  every 
one  would  find,  or  would  seem  to  find  most  among 
those  of  his  own  name.  But  without  boasting  on  the 
one  hand,  or  unjustly  criminating  on  the  other,  it  may 
be  safely  said,  that  in  proportion  as  people  depart 
from  the  faith,  which  was  once  delivered  to  the  saints, 
they  decline  in  vital  religion  and  in  Christian  character. 
If  there  must  be  contest  for  preeminence  among 
Christians  of  different  names,  let  it  be  a  holy  emula- 
tion to  excel  in  promoting  the  interest  of  the  Re- 
deemer's kingdom,  and  in  manifesting  the  spirit  of  the 
gospel.  Let  it  be  admitted  that  he  knows  most  oJ'God, 
who  walks  nearest  to  him. 

THE     END. 


•*tt»r»;J 


..*■«»■ .  d> 


•"*■ 


